ADD Investigation imports of Acrylic Fibre exported from China PR Peru and Thailand

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 219] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2025/SHRAVANA 27, 1947 CG-DL-E-21082025-265587 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 18th August, 2025 FINAL FINDING Case No. AD(OI) 14/2024 Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Acrylic Fibre’ originating in or exported from China PR, Peru and Thailand. A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE F. No. 6/16/2024-DGTR – Having regard to the Custom Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) thereof. 1. Indian Acrylic Limited, Pasupati Acrylon Limited and Vardhaman Acrylics Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “applicants”) have filed a duly substantiated application before the Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) for initiation of anti dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre (hereinafter referred to as “product under consideration” or “PUC” or “subject goods”), from China PR, Peru and Thailand (hereinafter referred to as the “subject countries”). 2. The Authority, on the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by the applicants, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/16/2024-DGTR dated 29th June 2024, published in the Gazette of India – Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with the Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the applicants. B. PROCEDURE 3. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation: i. In accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Rules, the Authority notified the embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation. ii. In accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Rules, the Authority issued a public notice dated 29th June 2024, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the anti dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. iii. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of present investigation is 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024 (12 months). The injury analysis period covers 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and the period of investigation. iv. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification to the embassies of the subject countries in India, the known producers and exporters from the subject countries, the known importers/users in India, and the other interested parties, as per the addresses made available by the applicants. The interested parties were asked to provide relevant information in the form and manner prescribed in the initiation notification and make submissions in writing within the time limits prescribed in the initiation notification. v. In accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules, the Authority provided a copy of the non confidential version of the application filed by the applicants to the known producers/exporters and to the embassies of the subject countries in India in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. The embassies of the subject countries in India was also requested to advise the exporters/producers to submit their responses to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. vi. In accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules, the Authority sent exporter’s questionnaire to the following known producers/ exporters in the subject countries. +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ | SN | Subject countries | Name of producers/exporters in the subject countries | +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ | 1 | China PR | Jilin Chemical Fiber Group I/E Co. Ltd. | | 2 | | Jilin Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd | | 3 | | Shandong Qilu Petrochemical Engineering Co. Ltd. | | 4 | | SINOPEC Shanghai Petrochemical Co. Ltd. | | 5 | | Yancheng Labon Technical Fiber Co. Ltd. | | 6 | Peru | Sudamericana de Fibras S.A | | 7 | Thailand | Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. | +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ vii. In response to the above, the following producers/exporters from the subject countries have responded and filed exporter’s questionnaire response: +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ | SN | Subject countries | Producers/exporters in the subject countries | +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ | 1 | China PR | Jilin Chemical Fiber Group I/E Co. Ltd. | | 2 | | Jilin Jimont Acrylic Fiber Co. Ltd. | | 3 | | Jilin Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd | | 4 | Peru | Sudamericana De Fibras S.A | | 5 | Thailand | Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. | +----+-----------------+------------------------------------------+ viii. In accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules, the Authority also sent questionnaire to the following known importers/users of the product under consideration in India calling necessary information: +----+----------------------------------------------+ | SN | Users/importers | +----+----------------------------------------------+ | 1 | Arvind OG Nonwovens Private Limited | | 2 | Ashutosh Fibre Private Limited | | 3 | Asian Paints Limited | | 4 | Autotech Non-Wovens Private Limited | | 5 | Bhagwati Cotton & Spinning Mills Private Limited | | 6 | Exide Industries Limited | | 7 | Ganga Acrowools Limited | | 8 | Grasim Industries Limited | | 9 | Harsha Industries Corporation | | 10 | Industrial Filters & Fabrics Private Limited | | 11 | Lakhmi Woollen Mills | | 12 | Maha Lakshmi Spinning Mills | | 13 | Oswal Woolen Mills Limited | | 14 | Perennials India Private Limited | | 15 | Ramji Acro Limited | | 16 | Shiva Fibres Private Limited | | 17 | Shiwalya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited | | 18 | Shree Ganesh Industries | | 19 | Sri Annapurna Cotton Mills & Industries Limited | | 20 | Supreme Nonwoven Industries Private Limited | | 21 | The India Jute and Industries Limited | +----+----------------------------------------------+ ix. In response to the above notification, the following importers and users have registered in the present investigation and have made submissions: +----+-------------------------------+ | SN | Users/importers | +----+-------------------------------+ | 1 | Ganga Acrowools Limited | | 2 | Maha Lakshmi Spinning Mills | | 3 | Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd | | 4 | Shiv Woolen Mills | | 5 | Shree Ganesh Spinners | | 6 | Sportking India Limited | +----+-------------------------------+ x. Udey Udyog, Punjab Spinners Association, Wool & Woollens Export Promotion Council, Sharman Woolen Mills Private Limited and Knitwear & Textile Club have filed letters requesting non imposition of measures. These parties have not circulated their submissions with other interested parties. xi. Exporters, foreign producers and other interested parties who have not responded to or supplied relevant information to this investigation, have been treated as non cooperating interested parties. xii. The Authority issued an economic interest questionnaire to all the known producers and exporters, importers, and applicants. The economic interest questionnaire was also shared with the administrative line ministry. An economic interest questionnaire was filed by the applicants and participating exporters from Peru and Thailand, and importers and users. xiii. A request was made to the Directorate General for Systems and Data Management (DG Systems) to provide DG System data of the imports of the product under consideration for the injury investigation period and the period of investigation. The same has been received by the Authority and has been considered in this final finding. xiv. The interested parties were granted an opportunity to present their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and propose PCNs, if required, within 15 days of the circulation of the initiation notification. Based on submissions, the Authority clarified and notified the PCN on 26th September 2024. xv. A list of all the interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website along with the request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. xvi. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authority provided an opportunity for the interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 21st January 2025 in hybrid mode. The parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. xvii. Due to the change of the Designated Authority, a fresh oral hearing was held on 23 May 2025 wherein all interested parties were provided the opportunity to present their views. The parties who presented their views in the oral hearing were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions, if any. xviii.In accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules, the Authority conducted the verification of the information provided by the applicant and other interested parties to the extent considered necessary for the purposes of the present investigation xix. The non-injurious price (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIP’) has been determined based on the cost of production and reasonable profits of the subject goods in India, based on the information furnished by the applicant on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the AD Rules, 1995 so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the applicants. xx. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties to the extent the same is supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation. xxi. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 17th July 2025. The Authority has examined all the post disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent deemed relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission, and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has not been repeated for the sake of brevity. xxii. “***” in this final finding represents information furnished by an interested party on a confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. xxiii.The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$= Rs. 83.69. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under: “3. The product under consideration in the present investigation is acrylic fibre of all types and kinds. Acrylic fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at least 90% by weight of acrylonitrile, which is a major raw material to produce acrylic fibre. The terms acrylic fibre includes acrylic staple, acrylic tow and acrylic top. In other words, acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow and acrylic top are known as acrylic fibre in the commercial parlance. 4. The unit of measurement considered in the present investigation for the product under consideration is Metric Tons (MT). 5. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 55 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the sub-headings 55013000, 55033000 and 55063000. The product is also being imported under 55033010 and 55033090. The customs classification is only indicative and is not binding on the scope of the investigation.” C.1 Submission made by the other interested parties. 5. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration and like article. i.The applicants do not manufacture anti-pilling acrylic, Bluesign® approved gel-dyed acrylic, pigment (or solution) dyed acrylic, recycled GRS certified acrylic, homopolymer acrylic, acid dyeable acrylic, anti-bacterial acrylic, thermoregulatory acrylic, low abrasion acrylic and high shrinkage acrylic. ii. The specialty grades of acrylic fibre range from USD 2100 to 5000 per MT, significantly higher than the regular grades, which are priced between USD 1600 and 1800 per MT. The price difference shows that these are specialty grades and justifies their exclusion. iii. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre should be excluded from the scope of the product, as the applicants lack the capability to supply it in the domestic market. This is evident from the applicant’s website, which shows no listing of anti-pilling. Further, no product promotion of anti-pilling acrylic fibre was undertaken by the applicants. iv. While standard acrylic fibre has 90% acrylonitrile and linear polymer chains, the anti pilling acrylic fibre contains 5-10% comonomers, cross-linked polymer chains, and requires specific production techniques. v. Standard fibre tenacity is 2-3.5 g/denier, while anti-pilling fibre is above 3.5 g/denier. In Martindale Pilling Tests, standard fibre rates 1-2, and anti-pilling rates 4-5. Thus, standard acrylic fibre cannot substitute anti-pilling acrylic fibre. vi. Standard acrylic fibre is used in low to mid-range knitwear, casual wear, basic home textiles, and industrial applications, while anti-pilling acrylic fibre is used in premium knitwear, luxury outerwear, high-end blankets, high-traffic upholstery, military, and protective clothing, and specialized applications. vii. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre sells at a premium price due to its enhanced performance, while standard acrylic fibre is seen as an economical option. Consumer perceptions and price differences indicate separate market segments for this fibre. viii. The anti-pilling acrylic fibre, gel-dyed fibre, and high shrinkage fibre are technically and commercially distinct from standard grades produced by the applicants. ix. Imports from Peru are limited to substandard products, which do not compete in the same market as products exported from other subject countries. The low import price indicates separate market segment and is not commercially or technically substitutable. x. Substandard products are made on the same production lines but without defined quality specifications. This results in less processable fibres, more waste, and reduced spinning machine productivity due to frequent yarn breaks and wraps. xi. The products exported from Peru are substandard and are technically and commercially non-substitutable with the products manufactured by the domestic industry. The price differences and end use application make the product different. xii. The low import price from Peru indicates a separate market segment and is not commercially or technically substitutable with the applicants’ products. xiii. Conditions of competition between imports from Peru and imports from the other subject countries are clearly different. The imports should therefore not be cumulated. C.2 Submission made by the applicants. 6. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: i. The product under consideration in the present investigation is acrylic fibre of all types and kinds. The product is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at least 90% by weight of acrylonitrile, which is a major raw material to produce acrylic fibre. ii. The term of acrylic fibre includes acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow fibre and acrylic top fibre. iii. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre and standard acrylic fibre share the same raw materials, chemical composition, and molecular structure. The only difference is the extra processing in anti-pilling acrylic fibre, which enhances resistance to pilling without altering its essential characteristics. iv. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre and standard acrylic fibre are interchangeable. The applicant has exported the product. During the period of investigation, the import of anti-pilling acrylic fibre is hardly 100-120 MT, which constitute [***] of the Indian demand v. Gel-dyed acrylic is just dyed acrylic fibre with no change in its fundamental properties. Regardless of the dyeing method, the end product is always dyed acrylic fibre, used in the same way. These products are interchangeable. The applicants have supplied gel-dyed acrylic before, but due to low demand, they are not currently producing it, and imports are minimal. vi. The other interested parties have requested for the exclusion of high shrinkage fibre on the ground that the same is not produced by the domestic industry. However, the applicants have supplied high shrinkage acrylic in the domestic market. The demand for the product is very low. Level of shrinkage is a relative term and does not alter the product or the manner in which the product is used or the end use. vii. On the submission of other interested parties requesting exclusion of specialty grades, the total imports of these products are less than 160 MT which does not even constitute 1% of the total India demand. viii. On the submission of other interested parties that there is a significant difference in the prices of the specialty product, these specialty grades product have been imported in the period of investigation and at a price similar to that of regular acrylic fibre. Even if specialty grades were exported at higher prices in the past, these can be exported at comparable prices in future and can substitute the product sold by the applicants, thus undermining the purpose for which the present anti-dumping duty. ix. The applicants produce specialty grades although production is in smaller quantities x. If any grade is excluded from the scope of the product under consideration, imports of that grade will continue being dumped. Exclusion of the so-called specialty grades would lead to continued injury to the applicants. xi. The producer from Peru claimed that it was exporting “sub-standard products” to India, which do not meet the technical specifications of first-quality acrylic fibre. In the anti-dumping investigation in 2018, the exporter had requested the exclusion of lower-grade products on similar grounds, but the product was not excluded. xii. The product imported from Peru and supplied by the domestic industry is the same. There is no technology capable of producing such a large quantity of sub-standard acrylic fibre below raw material cost. Minimal low-quality acrylic fibre is produced in India and sold at a slight discount. xiii. The imports of Acrylic Fibre waste are classifiable under the Customs heading 5504 which is outside the scope of the investigation. xiv. Ganga Acrowools Limited is one of the largest consumers and has participated in the present investigation. The consumer has purchased from domestic industry, China and Thailand and Peru but has not made any submission on the exclusion of low-quality acrylic fibre from Peru. xv. The import price of Peru has moved in line with the prices of the other subject countries. The producers from subject countries have sold the product to the same set of customers. xvi. The product has been investigated in past, and it has been consistently found that the imported product from Peru is same as other countries and supplied by the producers in India. xvii. There are around 15-20 producer in India which are sourcing from Peru and the other subject countries. Therefore, the contention that imports of Peru are limited to substandard products that do not compete in the same market as the products exported from other subject countries is incorrect. xviii. No evidence has been put forward to show that the specialty grade is different from regular acrylic fibre. The applicants have already submitted evidence to show that exclusion requested products are no specialty grade. C.3 Examination by the Authority 7. The submissions made by the other interested parties and the applicants regarding the product under consideration and the like article have been examined and addressed hereunder. 8. The product under consideration is acrylic fibre of all types and kinds. Acrylic fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at least 90% by weight of acrylonitrile, which is a major raw material to produce acrylic fibre. The terms acrylic fibre includes acrylic staple, acrylic tow and acrylic top. In other words, acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow and acrylic top are known as acrylic fibre in the commercial parlance. The product is used for manufacturing yarn, which in turn is used in making apparels, household items and industrial use etc. 9. The Authority had granted an opportunity to all the interested parties to file their submissions on the scope of the PUC and PCNs, within 15 days of the circulation of the receipt of intimation of initiation of the investigation. 10. Based on the comments received from the interested parties, the Authority considered the following PCN methodology for the present investigation which was notified vide notice dated 26th September 2024 published on the DGTR website. +----+---------------+--------+--------+ | SN | Product type | Colour | PCN | | | | | Code | +----+---------------+--------+--------+ | 1 | Staple fibre | Dyed | P11 | | | or tow | Undyed | P12 | | 2 | Top | Dyed | P21 | | | | Undyed | P22 | +----+---------------+--------+--------+ 11. The product under consideration is classifiable under Chapter 55 of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 under sub-headings 55013000, 55033000 and 55063000. Transaction wise import data was procured, and it is seen that in addition to 55013000, 55033000 and 55063000, the product has also been imported under 55033090 as well. It is also noted that the customs classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the scope of the subject investigation. 12. Several interested parties have submitted that the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) should exclude certain specialty grades of acrylic fibre that possess distinct technical or commercial characteristics and are allegedly not produced by the domestic industry. The exclusions sought include: i. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre, ii. Bluesign® APPROVED gel-dyed acrylic fibre, iii. High shrinkage acrylic fibre, iv. Homopolymer acrylic fibre, v. Pigment-dyed or solution-dyed acrylic fibre, vi. Recycled GRS-certified acrylic fibre, vii. Acid dyeable acrylic fibre, viii. Anti-bacterial acrylic fibre, ix. Thermoregulatory acrylic fibre, and x. Low-abrasion acrylic fibre. 13. The interested parties have submitted that these are technically advanced or environmentally certified variants which serve niche applications and are priced significantly higher than standard grades. It has also been submitted that the applicants do not produce most of these grades, and wherever claimed, there is no evidence of regular domestic sales. 14. The Authority notes that several of these specialty grades have been imported under distinct brand names, such as: • Pilbloc for anti-pilling acrylic fibre, and • Durashine for pigment-dyed (solution-dyed) acrylic fibre. • AMICOR for anti-bacterial acrylic fibre. 15. These imports have been made under identifiable commercial names, indicating that the goods were ordered for their specific performance characteristics. The concerned exporters have also explained the technical specifications and proprietary formulations of these grades in their responses. 16. It is further noted that while the applicants have claimed to produce anti-pilling acrylic fibre, it has not been sold in the domestic market during the period of investigation. Only a single sample invoice of export has been provided, and no evidence of regular commercial sale of this grade within India has been submitted. For other grades such as Bluesign® APPROVED, pigment/solution dyed, recycled GRS-certified, acid dyeable, anti-bacterial, thermoregulatory, and low-abrasion acrylic fibre, the applicants have not claimed any production. 17. In view of the above, the Authority is of the view that the applicants have not established sufficient grounds to include the aforementioned specialty grades within the scope of the product under consideration. Given, the lack of domestic production or sale, combined with the low demand and differentiated nature of such imports and the inability of the applicant to justify inclusion, the Authority proposes to exclude the following products from the scope of the product under consideration. i. Anti-pilling acrylic fibre, ii. Bluesign® APPROVED gel-dyed acrylic fibre, iii. High shrinkage acrylic fibre, iv. Homopolymer acrylic fibre, v. Pigment-dyed or solution-dyed acrylic fibre, vi. Recycled GRS-certified acrylic fibre, vii. Acid dyeable acrylic fibre, viii. Anti-bacterial acrylic fibre, ix. Thermoregulatory acrylic fibre, and x. Low-abrasion acrylic fibre. 18. As regards the exclusion of acrylic fibre imported from Peru on the ground that it is of sub standard quality, the Authority notes that the product cannot be excluded from the scope of the investigation merely on the ground that the product is sub-standard. The issue was also raised in the previous anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre from China PR, Belarus, Ukraine, European Union and Peru and the product was not excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. It is also seen that imports of waste acrylic fibre are classifiable under Heading – 5505 Waste (including noils, yarn waste and garnetted stock) of man-made fibres. Waste of Acrylic Fibre are classifiable under 55051010. However, the imports of Peru are reported in the above-mentioned HS codes for product under consideration. It is also noted from the information on record that there are around 15-20 producers in India that are sourcing from Peru and the other subject countries. Ganga Acrowools Limited has participated in the present investigation and has purchased from the domestic industry, China and Thailand and Peru, but has not made any such submission. Therefore, the Authority does not find it appropriate to exclude the product imported from Peru from the scope of the investment. 19. In view of the above, the scope of the product under consideration is confirmed as below. The product under consideration in the present investigation is acrylic fibre of all types and kinds, excluding homopolymer acrylic fibre, anti-pilling acrylic fibre, Bluesign® APPROVED gel-dyed acrylic fibre, pigment (or solution) dyed acrylic, high shrinkage acrylic fibre, pigment dyed or solution dyed acrylic fibre, recycled GRS-certified acrylic, acid-dyeable acrylic, anti-bacterial acrylic, thermoregulatory acrylic, and low-abrasion acrylic fibre containing 100% acrylonitrile 20. The product under consideration, produced by the applicants and imported from the subject countries, is comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable, and consumers can use them interchangeably. It is therefore proposed to be considered that the goods produced by the applicants are like articles to the product under consideration, imported from the subject countries. D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING D.1 Submission made by the other interested parties 21. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and standing: i.Vardhaman Acrylic Limited has a related parties Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills and Vardhman Textiles Limited which have imported the product under consideration from Thailand during the period of investigation, but the applicant has not disclosed the information. ii. In the previous Antidumping investigation on imports of Acrylic Fibre originating in or exported from Belarus, Ukraine, European Union and Peru, the Authority excluded Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. from the scope of the domestic industry. iii. The investigation should be terminated on the ground that one of the applicants has made a misdeclaration that it does not have any related importer. iv. Indian Acrylic Limited has imported product under consideration from the subject countries in the period of investigation and therefore cannot be considered as domestic industry under the definition of Rule 2(b). D.2 Submission made by the applicants 22. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the domestic industry and standing: i. The application was filed by Indian Acrylic Limited, Pasupati Acrylon Limited and Vardhman Acrylics Limited. There is no other producer of like article in India. The applicants accounts for 100% share in the total Indian production. ii. Indian Acrylic Limited has imported [***MT] of product under consideration from the subject countries in the period of investigation. The imports were made for making yarn for export purposes. The imports are negligible in comparison to total imports, the company production and overall demand in India. iii. While Vardhman Acrylics Limited is not related to exporter in the subject countries, it is related to an importer of the product. However, the related importer has not traded the product but captively consumed it. iv. The low volume of imports by related company of Vardhman Acrylic Limited does not disentitle Vardhman Acrylic Limited from being treated as eligible domestic industry. v. The imports made by related party of Vardhman Acrylics Limited in the previous investigation in relation to production of the company was between 20-30%. In the present investigation, the imports in relation to company production was only [***%]. vi. Imports made by the related party of Vardhman Acrylic Limited is less than 1% of Indian demand and Vardhaman production. Since the volume of imports were low, it does not disentitle them from being treated an eligible domestic industry. D.3 Examination by the Authority 23. The submissions made by the interested parties and the applicants concerning standing and scope of the domestic industry have been examined and addressed hereunder: 24. 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 activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry ’ may be constructed as referring to the rest of the producers.” 25. The present application has been filed by Indian Acrylic Limited, Pasupati Acrylon Limited and Vardhaman Acrylics Limited. Apart from the applicants there are no other producers of the like article in India. 26. One of the applicants, namely Indian Acrylics Limited, imported [*** MT] of the product under consideration from the subject countries during the period of investigation. Indian Acrylics Limited has claimed that these imports were used for the further production of yarn intended for export purposes and the yarn produced using the imported product under consideration was not sold in the domestic market. The table below shows the volume of imports made by Indian Acrylics Limited and compares the said imports with the company production, total demand in India, and total imports. The volume of imports has been verified using DG system data. +----+-----------------------------+-----------+ | SN | Particulars | Imports | +----+-----------------------------+-----------+ | 1 | Imports made by applicant | *** MT | | 2 | Imports in relation to company’s production | Less than 1% | | 3 | Imports in relation to total demand | Less than 1% | | 4 | Imports in relation to total imports | Less than 1% | +----+-----------------------------+-----------+ 27. The Authority notes that the volume of imports made by Indian Acrylics Limited during the period of investigation is insignificant compared to the total volume of imports, the company production, and the total demand in the country. It is also seen that Indian Acrylic Limited has only imported in the period of investigation. The imports made by Indian Acrylics Limited are not of such volume as to disqualify them from being treated as an eligible domestic industry. 28. As regards the submissions on Vardhaman Acrylic Limited having a related importer, the applicant has submitted that Vardhman Acrylics Limited and Vardhman Textiles Limited are separate legal entities, and Vardhman Acrylics Limited was not aware of any such imports by its affiliate due to internal policies that restrict such communication. 29. The Authority notes that Vardhman Textiles Limited has consistently imported the product under consideration from the subject countries. It is also seen that DG System transaction wise data does not show any imports of Vardhaman Spinning & General Mills Limited. The table below shows the import volume made by Vardhman Textiles Limited over the injury period as per DG system data: +-------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | Particulars | UOM | 2020-21| 2021-22| 2022-23| 2023-24| +-------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | Vardhman Textile Limited| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | +-------------------------+------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ 30. Vardhman Acrylic Limited has not been able to justify the reason for the imports made by Vardhman Textiles Limited. Vardhman Acrylic Limited has not provided any information on whether the imported product has been consumed or sold in the domestic market, or exported. Even in the previous anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre from Belarus, Ukraine, the European Union and Peru, Vardhman Textiles Limited was not considered eligible domestic industry. In light of submissions made by other interested parties and the consistent imports made by the related importer for the domestic market, the Authority finds it appropriate to exclude Vardhman Acrylics Limited from the scope of the domestic industry. 31. In view of the above, the Authority holds that Indian Acrylic Limited and Pasupati Acrylon Limited are the only eligible producers under Rule 2(b). The two producers constitute 100% share in the total eligible Indian production of the like article in India. 32. On the basis of the above, considering the provisions of Rule 2(b) and the facts of the case, the Authority concludes that Indian Acrylic Limited and Pasupati Acrylon Limited account for a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product in India. The Authority holds that the two producers constitute a domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) and the application satisfies the criteria of standing in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Rules. E. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. E.1 Submissions made by the other interested parties. 33. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality: i.The applicants have claimed excessive confidentiality, in violation of Trade Notice No. 10/2018 as they have not disclosed actual aggregated data of sales value: (a) domestic sales – SSI (b) domestic sales other than SSI (c) exports sales and (d) captive consumption, PBIT per unit, total PBIT, interest and finance cost and depreciation. ii. The applicants have determined normal value for Peru and Thailand based on the price reported in the CMA report but claimed them confidential. Such prices are available in the public domain. iii. The applicants have claimed public information on shutdown as confidential despite it being provided in the annual report. iv. The applicants have claimed volume of imports made by Indian Acrylics Limited and resale price of imported material as confidential. v. The applicants had received sufficient protection through trade remedial measures spanning over two decades from 1996 to 2019 on various countries. The principle of progressive liberalization under Article 11.1 of the WTO requires anti-dumping in force as long as it’s necessary. Reliance placed on WTO Appellate Body ruling in US Carbon Steel (India). E.2 Submissions made by the applicants. 34. The applicants have submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality: i. The disclosure of actual sales value, profit and expenses would disclose their selling prices and profits. Since the information is highly business sensitive, it would adversely impact the position of the applicants in the market. ii. Disclosure of profits and selling prices could lead customers to demand price adjustments, knowing others paid less. This could compromise the applicants’ market position and potentially cause a loss of sales as customers might switch to different suppliers. iii. The normal value of Peru and Thailand is based on the price reported in the CMA report. CMA reports are third party paid information and not available in public domain. The domestic industry is not authorized to disclose such information. iv. The shutdown details provided in the application are much more in detail than those available in public domain. The information in the annual report is a mere statement whereas the information provided to the Authority is much more detailed. v. On the submission that resale price of imports has been claimed confidential, the applicants have clearly stated that the imports made by Indian Acrylics Limited are for producing yarn only for export purposes and has not been sold in the domestic market. E.3 Examination by the Authority 35. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to all the other interested parties as per Rule 6(7). 36. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 of 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 rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sab-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 authorization of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the 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 authority a statement of reasons why summarization 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 authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.” 37. The submissions made by the applicants and the other interested parties concerning confidentiality, to the extent considered relevant, have been examined. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential versions of the information filed on a confidential basis. The Authority also notes that all the interested parties have claimed their business-related sensitive information as confidential. 38. As regards the submission that the applicants have received sufficient protection through trade remedy measures for over two decades, the Authority notes that there is no bar on the number of times the applicants can seek redressal from unfair trade practices of the foreign producers/exporters or no bar on the number of times anti-dumping duty can be imposed. The recommendations for the imposition of anti-dumping duty are made only after a thorough investigation by the Authority and when the requisite legal requirements are met. 39. In accordance with Rule 8 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority sought further clarifications from the domestic industry and other interested parties. Communications were issued to the participating producers from the subject countries as well as to the importers in India. The responses received from interested parties have been examined and taken into consideration to the extent deemed relevant. It is noted that Shiv Woolen Mills did not file a complete questionnaire response and verification documents. 40. It is observed that while Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. reported that it had extended post invoicing discounts through credit notes to certain user-importers—namely Ganga Acrowools Limited, Maha Lakshmi Spinning Mills, and Shree Ganesh Spinners. The users did not report any such discounts in their respective questionnaire responses. This resulted in a lack of reconciliation between the invoice values reported by the producer and the corresponding purchase values reported by these users. 41. Upon noticing these inconsistencies, the Authority issued communications to the concerned importers seeking clarification. In response, Shree Ganesh Spinners stated that credit notes had been accounted for in their books, while Maha Lakshmi Spinning Mills maintained that no discounts or rebates were received. Ganga Acrowools Limited initially denied receiving any post-invoicing discounts or rebates. However, both Shree Ganesh Spinners and Ganga Acrowools Limited later acknowledged that the credit notes were recorded in their accounts and that the purchase price reflected the gross value. In contrast, the producer had reported invoice values on a net basis, thereby confirming the mismatch in reporting by the users. Further, these user-importers did not provide the reconciliation statement for commercial invoices, credit notes received, and the payments made, along with the documents as sought by the authority. 42. The Authority also requested all interested parties to provide details regarding the presence of commission agents representing producers in the subject countries. In response, exporters Jilin Jimont Acrylic Fiber Co., Ltd, Jilin Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd, and Jilin Chemical Fiber Group I/E Co., Ltd submitted that nearly all of their sales—except one invoice—were made through a commission agent. These producers also submitted copies of the agreements with the commission agents, which confirm that marketing of the product and realization of payment were responsibilities assigned to the agent. 43. However, one of the user-importers, Ganga Acrowools Limited, who imported goods from these suppliers, stated that no commission agent was involved in their transactions. This results in conflicting statements from the exporter and the importer with respect to the mode of sale. The records submitted by the producers are supported by written agreements, whereas no evidence has been provided by the user to substantiate its claim. 44. In view of the above, the Authority concludes that the responses submitted by the participating user-importers, namely Shiv Woolen Mills, Ganga Acrowools Limited, Maha Lakshmi Spinning Mills, and Shree Ganesh Spinners, are incomplete, inconsistent, and unreliable. Their failure to disclose post-invoicing discounts, along with contradictory claims regarding the involvement of commission agents, indicates a lack of full cooperation in the investigation process. F. NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DETERMINATION OF DUMPING MARGIN F.1 Submission made by the other interested parties 45. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. For purposes of normal value for China PR, Thailand should be considered as surrogate country. Thailand operates under market economy with the prices and cost are determined by market forces. ii. The data provided by the Thailand producers provides direct and verifiable information about the cost and price in the market. iii. Thailand is the largest exporter of the product to India. iv. Peru cannot be considered as third market economy country as producers from Peru produces and sells substandard products. Therefore, Peru cost and price for constructing normal value would not be appropriate. v. The Authority has in past considered Thailand as appropriate market economy third country for China PR. vi. Chinese producers’ plants operate at approximately 90% capacity utilization, leaving limited scope for aggressive dumping. Their production strategy focuses on meeting domestic demand, with exports serving as a supplementary market. F.2 Submission made by the applicants 46. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. Article 15(a)(ii) of the China’s Accession Protocol had expired in December 2016 as envisaged under Article 15(b) and the same cannot be applied to the present case. ii. The participating Chinese group has failed to file the MET questionnaire in the present investigation. Hence, the Authority should not determine normal value on the basis of their domestic sales. No comments with respect to normal value should be considered as it is belated. iii. Since Chinese producers have not claimed market economy treatment, the normal value is required to be determined based on Para 7 of Annexure 1 of the anti-dumping rules. Further, the normal value has to be determined in a sequential manner only and this has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shenyang Matsushita S. Battery Co. Ltd. vs Exide Industries Ltd. iv. Under Para 7 of Annexure 1, the first option under the rules is price or cost in a market economy third country. The rules provide that a market economy third country is required to be determined with regard the level of development of the product and the country. v. Thailand cannot be considered as market economy third country as Thailand is also subject to this investigation. Similar view was taken by the Authority in the anti dumping concerning imports of PVC Paste from China PR, Korea RP, Malaysia, Norway, Taiwan & Thailand. vi. The second option under the rules is price from such a third country to another country, including India. The product is imported from Turkey, Japan etc. The volume of imports from Turkey is more than de-minimis and can be considered basis for normal value. Reference is placed on CESTAT decision in case of Kuitun Jinjiang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India. The import price from Turkey is sufficient in volume and can be considered as a market economy third country. vii. The other interested parties did not provide any evidence to show that Thailand qualifies as an appropriate market economy for Chima PR. viii. There is only one producer in Thailand unlike China where there are many producers. China is a major consumer, while Thailand has low demand. Therefore, Thailand cannot be considered a market economy country having comparable level of development. ix. Subject country considering as a surrogate is inconsistent with established practices and that alternative market economy countries should be considered. F.3 Examination by the Authority 47. The response to exporters questionnaire has been filed by the following producers/exporters from the subject countries i. Jilin Chemical Fiber Group I/E Co. Ltd. ii. Jilin Jimont Acrylic Fiber Co. Ltd. iii. Jilin Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd iv. Sudamericana De Fibras S.A v. Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. F.3.1 Determination of normal value and export price a. Normal value and export price from China PR. i. Normal value for China PR 48. Article 15 of China’s Accession Protocol in WTO provides as follows: Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following: (a) In determining price comparability 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 clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; (ii) The importing WO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. (b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO member may then use 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 terms 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 provision 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 nonmarket economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector." 49. The applicants had relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China’s the Accession Protocol as well as para 7 of the Annexure I and claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of the product under consideration. It has been stated by the applicants that in case the responding Chinese producers are not able to demonstrate that their costs and price information are market driven, the normal value should be calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure- I to the Rules. 50. It is noted that while the provision contained in Section 15 (a)(ii) has expired on 11.12.2016, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement read with the obligation under Section 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in paragraph 8 of Annexure I of the Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire on claiming market economy treatment. It is noted that since the responding producers/exporters from China PR have not submitted response to the supplementary questionnaire the normal value computation is required to be done as per the provisions of paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules. 51. As none of the producers from China PR have claimed determination of normal value on the basis of their own data/information, the normal value has been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules, which reads as under: “7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner [keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.” 52. Para 7 lays down a hierarchy for the determination of normal value and provides that normal value shall be determined on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to any other country, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like article, duly adjusted, if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. Thus, the Authority notes that the normal value is required to be determined having regard to the various sequential alternatives provided under Para 7. 53. The Authority also notes the existing jurisprudence on constructing the normal value in the case of a non-market economy contained in the various judgements. These judgements provide directions regarding the implementation of Para 7 of Annexure I of the Rules concerning the choice of an appropriate option, and associated obligations thereof. 54. At the stage of application, the applicants have claimed normal value on the basis of price from such third country to other countries including India. For this purpose, the applicants had considered the import price from Turkey into India. 55. As per the legal hierarchy, the normal value should be determined based on either the price or the constructed value in a market economy third country. If such information is unavailable, it should then be based on export prices from that country to other destinations, including India. The Authority notes that interested parties have proposed Thailand as a surrogate country for determining the normal value for China. However, the anti-dumping rules specify that a suitable market economy country should be selected considering the level of development of the country in question and the nature of the product. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that China and Thailand are at comparable levels of development. Furthermore, Thailand has only one producer, whereas China has many, and Thailand’s domestic demand is minimal. Thus, the level of development of the product in China and Thailand are not comparable. The interested parties have also cited a previous anti-dumping investigation involving imports of Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) Resin from China and Korea, where Thailand was used as a market economy country. The Authority clarifies that in that case, normal value for China was determined based on Thailand’s export prices and not its domestic prices. It was specifically noted that Thailand’s export volume was the highest among non-subject countries, and since there were no anti dumping measures in place against Thailand, the CIF price was deemed representative. Therefore, the Authority holds that Thailand cannot be regarded as a surrogate country for China in the current case. 56. The next methodology under the rules is to consider export prices from a market economy third country to other countries, including India. Among non-subject countries, Turkey has the highest import volume. Since Turkey is not subject to any anti-dumping measures and the volume of its exports exceeds the de minimis threshold, and those exports are not dumped, it qualifies under this method. The Authority also refers to the decision in Kuitun Jinjiang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, where the Hon’ble CESTAT held that when normal value is determined based on exports from a market economy third country to India, the relevant factors are the volume of such exports and the absence of dumping during the period of investigation. Therefore, the Authority has considered normal value based on the import price from Turkey, duly adjusted to arrive at the ex-factory level. 57. The normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. ii. Export price for China PR i. Jilin group. 58. The following three companies have filed questionnaire response as part of Jilin group. ▪ Jilin Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd (Qifeng) (Producer & exporter) ▪ Jilin Jimont Acrylic Fiber co., Ltd. (Jimont) (Producer) ▪ Jilin Chemical FIBER Group I/E Co., Ltd. (JCFIE) (Exporter) 59. Since anti-pilling acrylic fibre is not part of the product under consideration, exports of anti pilling acrylic fibre has not been considered. Qifeng has made direct exports to independent customers in India on CIF basis. The export volume is *** MT and gross value of export is *** CNY. Further, Qifeng has made indirect exports to independent customers in India through JCFIE, a related trader of the exporter on CIF basis. The export volume and gross value of the export of product under consideration is *** MT and *** CNY respectively. Qifeng has exported [***] MT of anti-pilling acrylic fibre which is outside the scope of the product under consideration. These imports have not been considered for the calculation of export price and landed price. 60. The export channel of Qifeng – *** *** 61. Jimont has made indirect exports to independent customers in India through ***, a related trader on CIF basis. The export volume and gross value of the export is *** MT and *** CNY respectively. 62. The export channel of Jimont – *** 63. Qifeng and Jinmont have claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, inland transport, port expenses, commission, ocean insurance, bank charges, credit cost etc. In case of Qifeng’s direct sales, there is no credit cost as payment terms do not provide for any credit period. Additionally, the ex-factory export price has been calculated by taking the ultimate exporter’s invoice value in CNY and deducting all the adjustments, incidental and ancillary to export and as reported in the respective appendices of the exporter and the producer. The ex-factory export price as determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table. ii. Any other producer/exporter. 64. The net export price for the other producers has been determined based on the facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) and is shown in the dumping margin table. b. Normal value and export price from Thailand Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. 65. Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. (TAF) has sold [***] MT of the subject goods in the domestic market during the period of investigation. It is seen that only [***] MT of product has been sold in the domestic market to unrelated parties. Sales to related parties are priced lower than the sales price to unrelated entity and have therefore, not been considered for the determination of normal value. It is also seen that out of total domestic sales, [***] MT of product has been sold of specialized grades which do not form part of the product under consideration. These grades have been specifically excluded from the scope of calculation of normal value and export price. The producer has exported [***] MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. 66. The producer has only exported ***** in the Indian market and there are sufficient sales of the product in the domestic market. i. Normal value. 67. To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted the ordinary course of trade test to determine profit-making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods on a PCN-wise basis. Where for PCN, less than 80% of sales were made at profit, the normal value has been determined based on the selling price of profitable sales. For the PCNs, where ever more than 80% of sales were made at profit, the normal value has been determined based on the selling price of all sales of that PCN. 68. TAF has claimed price adjustments on account of inland freight. The adjustments claimed have been allowed by the Authority. Thus, the normal value at ex-factory level for TAF has been calculated as mentioned in the dumping margin table below. ii. Export price. 69. TAF had made direct exports to unrelated importers and end users in India. The volume of the export is *** MT and the gross value is *** USD. The channel of export of TAF – ******* 70. TAF has claimed adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, inland freight and port related expenses. All exports to India are to independent customers. In case of FOB entries, only Inland freight and Port expenses are deducted and in case of CIF entries, Ocean freight, Marine Insurance, Inland freight and Port expenses are deducted. Accordingly, export price at ex-factory level has been determined and the same is shown on the dumping margin table. Any other producer/exporter. 71. The normal value and export price for the other producers has been determined based on the facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) and is shown in the dumping margin table. c. Normal value and export price from Peru Sudamericana De Fibras S.A 72. Sudamericana De Fibras S.A (SDF) has sold [***] MT of the subject goods in the domestic market during the period of investigation, whereas it has exported [***] MT of the subject goods to India. SDEF has submitted that while the products sold in the domestic market are standard products, the products exported to India are substandard. 73. The exporter has not provided PCN-wise export information. The producer has not offered verification of its questionnaire response. Since the Authority is unable to verify the information given in the EQR of the producer, the normal value for the producer cannot be determined. It is seen that the producer has failed to co-operate with the Authority to the best of its ability. Therefore, it is proposed not to grant an individual dumping margin to the producer. Any other producer/exporter. 74. The normal value and export price for all exporters from Peru have been determined based on the facts available in terms of Rule 6(8). d. Dumping margin 75. Based on the normal value and the export price as determined above, the dumping margin has been calculated and is shown in the table below. DUMPING MARGIN +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ |SN | Particulars | Normal value | NEP | Dumping | Dumping | Dumping | | | | USD/MT | USD/MT | margin USD/MT| margin % | margin range | +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ | A | China | | | | | | | 1 | Jilin Jimont Acrylic Fiber Co., Ltd, Jilin | *** | *** | *** | *** | 20-30% | | | Qifeng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd | | | | | | | 2 | Any other producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50% | +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ | B | Thailand | | | | | | | 1 | Thai Acrylic Fibre | *** | *** | *** | *** | 0-10% | +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ | | Co. Ltd | | | | | | | 2 | Any other producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20% | +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ | C | Peru | | | | | | | 1 | Any producer | *** | *** | *** | *** | 210-220% | +---+--------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+ G. EXAMINATION OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK G. 1 Submission made by the other interested parties 76. The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link: i. Demand in India has fallen from 1,04,119 MT in the base year to 96,291 in the period of investigation. On the contrary, the sales of the domestic industry have remained stable throughout the injury period. ii. Any increase in the volume of allegedly dumped imports from subject countries is due to the decrease in market share of imports from other countries. iii. The imports from Thailand have remained stable. There is a sharp increase in imports from China PR (250%) which is the source of any injury to the domestic industry. iv. The imports from Thailand and China have increased by 248 and 58 index points respectively but imports from Peru have only increased by 1 index points in the period of investigation as compared to base year. v. The imports from Peru have remained stable over time and have not impacted the prices and market share of the applicants. vi. The injury margins for Thailand are in the range of 0-10%, which is not significant enough to warrant anti-dumping duties. They maintained that their pricing strategies have been fair and competitive, without engaging in aggressive undercutting. vii. A thorough analysis of domestic industry data shows that there is no significant volume or price effects due to the alleged dumped imports. Overall demand for the product has declined, and factors such as fire-related stock loss and pandemic-related disruptions must be considered. viii. The acrylic fibre market has been impacted by rising acrylonitrile prices. This has possessed significant challenges on the manufacturer to maintain profitability. The same has been confirmed by Pasupati in its annual report of 2023-24. ix. Conditions of competition between imports from Peru and imports from the other subject countries are clearly different. The imports should therefore not be cumulated. x. The import price has increased by 30% in the period of investigation from the base year but the applicants’ selling price has remained stable. The applicants could have increased selling prices but due to strategic business decision, it decided to not increase the prices. xi. The import price from Thailand is higher than the other countries. Thus, any price pressure on the applicants is due to low priced imports from other countries. xii. China PR only has 6% market share whereas the domestic industry has approximately 70% market share which shows that domestic industry at a dominant position to dictate prices. xiii. Chinese producers primarily cater to their domestic market and that exports to India constitute a minor portion of their overall sales. xiv. The imports from Peru were undercutting the prices of the applicants in the previous year as well the applicants remained profitable. As when the import price from Peru increased in 2021-22, the PBIT of the applicants declined. This shows the import price from Peru has not impacted the performance of the applicants. xv. The proposal to exclude 2022-23 from injury analysis should not be accepted as 2022- 23 saw unusually high growth by post-pandemic increase in demand, making some correction during the period of investigation. xvi. The capacity utilization and domestic sales of the applicants has increased in the period of investigation as compared base year. xvii. The average inventory of the applicants has declined in the period of investigation as compared to base year. The market share of the applicants has increased in the period of investigation. xviii. There are inconsistencies in the applicants’ data, particularly regarding injury parameters. The applicants failed to establish a causal link between the alleged dumping and the injury suffered. xix. Reference is placed on US – Hot-Rolled Steel, WTO Appellate Body wherein it was held that unless the effects of other factors are clearly distinguished, Authorities have no rational basis to conclude that dumped imports are causing injury or to justify the imposition of anti-dumping duties. xx. The applicants have procured acrylonitrile at higher prices during an earlier period and have produced from higher cost inventory. xxi. The NIP law won't fully neutralize the impact of higher rates; it only addresses inefficient utilization in terms of volume. The Authority is requested to exclude high priced acrylonitrile from stock consumed during the POI while determining the NIP and only consider the price of acrylonitrile purchased during the POI should be used for rate determination. xxii. The losses suffered by the applicants are due to exogenous factors such as Covid 19. xxiii. The applicants claimed a drop in return on capital employed in the period of investigation. However, there was a 15% increase in capital employed during 2022-23 which continued into the period of investigation without an increase in production capacity. xxiv. The applicants’ shutdowns during FY 2020-21 were due to the COVID lockdown and government restrictions. Injury in the period of investigation is self-inflicted, attributed to internal factors such as technical challenges, employment and productivity issues, low-capacity utilization, and high costs, rather than alleged dumped imports. xxv. Vardhman in their annual report had admitted that high acrylonitrile consumption costs due to high-priced stock during the period of investigation contributed to the decline in demand. xxvi. Any fall in the internal transfer and exports by the applicants has an effect on the capacity utilization as well as on the profitability on account of higher fixed cost is not attribute to the imports from Thailand. xxvii.The acrylic fibre market faced tough competition from natural fibre in past few years. A decline in the demand of the product has caused significant injury to the applicants as the same was confirmed by the Indian Acrylic Limited and Pasupati Acrylon Limited in their annual report. xxviii. The injury suffered by the domestic industry are unfounded and due to internal inefficiencies rather than unfair trade practices. xxix. While Vardhaman Acrylic Limited and Pasupati Acrylon Limited made profits in the entire injury period as per the information available, it is only Indian Acrylic which claimed losses in some years during the past about 8 years and such losses for self inflicted reasons cannot be the ground of the present proceedings. G.2 Submission made by the applicants 77. The applicants have made the following submissions with regard to injury and causal link: i. The product has been repeatedly dumped into India for more than two decades. The shift of dumping from one country to another has not allowed the applicants to operate at reasonable profits. ii. There is only one producer in Thailand, namely Thai Acrylic Limited (TAF). TAF alone has a long history of dumping the product in the Indian market. iii. Since the original investigation in 1997, the Authority has repeatedly found TAF is dumping, leading to the imposition and subsequent extensions of anti-dumping duties across several reviews in 2002, 2007, 2013, and 2019. iv. Despite being subject to anti-dumping measures for more than 2 decades, imports from Thailand have continued to rise. TAF modus operandi involves dumping the product to capture the market. v. An analysis of the historical import data shows that the volume of imports from Thailand continuously increasing trend from early 1999- 00 to 2015-16. This was the period when there was no demand supply gap. vi. TAF initially had a capacity of 14,000 MT. However, over three decades, without any increase in domestic consumption, TAF increased its capacity. At present, TAF have an installed capacity of 1,20,000 MT against domestic demand of mere 5000 MT. It is obvious that excess capacities were set up with the aim to export the product globally and largely considering Chinese market. vii. TAF has been exporting significant volume to China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries. However, TAF has faced significant loss of market in global markets in general and China and Indonesia in particular. viii. TAF’s total exports in 2015 were 108 KT which dropped to 98 KT in 2018 and to 90 KT in 2022. The loss is largely due to Chinese producers expanding capacities in last few years and global shrinking in demand. ix. Due to loss in the Chinese market, TAF reduced its prices to India. The import price from Thailand declined more than the decline in the cost. TAF has sold the product at lower price in Indian market compared to exports to other countries. x. Chinese producers earlier lacked capacities and relied on imports from other countries and particularly from TAF. In the recent years, Chinese producers have established significant production capacities. As a result, China has transformed from being a net importer of 139 KT in 2015 and 130 KT in 2018 to becoming a net exporter of 21 KT in 2022. xi. Comparing the performance during the period of investigation with 2020-21 and 2021- 22 would not be appropriate as these years was impacted by Covid-19. Thus, the performance during the period of investigation must be compared with the immediate previous year. xii. The primary cause of injury was the influx of low-priced dumped imports, which led to price depression, undercutting, and loss of market share. xiii. Demand for the product declined in 2021-22 due to impact of covid 19. The demand increased in 2022-23. However, it declined in the period of investigation. The decline in demand for the product follows a cyclic trend. xiv. The imports from subject countries increased in 2021-22 and declined marginally in 2022-23. The imports sharply increased again in the period of investigation. xv. Despite having sufficient capacity to cater entire demand and even though the demand for the product declined in the period of investigation, subject imports have increased by 40% compared to previous year and by 73% compared to base year. xvi. The imports in relation to demand have increased from 17% in immediately preceding year to 22% in the period investigation. In relation to production has increased from 16% in immediately preceding year to 28% in the period investigation. xvii. On weighted average basis the landed price of subject imports is below the selling price of the applicants. Thus, subject imports are undercutting the prices of the applicants. xviii. The increased imports from subject countries have caused significant price undercutting and financial losses suffered during the period of investigation. The imports from subject countries have contributed directly to the injury. xix. In 2021-22, both cost of sales and selling price of the applicants increased, but the selling price did not rise proportionally due to the impact of the second wave of COVID-19. In 2022-23, as the cost of sales declined, the selling price also declined. The applicants were earning a reasonable profit during this period. xx. During the period of investigation, while the cost of sales declined by Rs [***] per MT (23 index points), the selling price dropped more significantly by Rs [***] per MT (29 index points). Therefore, the selling price of the applicants are depressed. xxi. The capacity of the applicants has remained constant throughout the injury period and is sufficient to cater entire demand in the country. xxii. The production of the applicants has declined in the period of investigation compared to previous year. xxiii. The domestic sales and capacity utilization of the applicants followed similar trend as production and declined significantly in the period of investigation. xxiv. While the demand for the product declined by 7% in the period of investigation, the domestic sales and production declined by 20% and 15% respectively. xxv. Towards the end of period of investigation, the plants of the applicants have operated in between 20-30% capacity utilization only. xxvi. The market share of subject imports sharply increased during the period of investigation as compared to previous year. On the other hand, the market share of the applicants has declined. xxvii.The inventories with the applicants have sharply increased in the period of investigation as compared to previous years. The dumped imports have forced the applicants to operation with significant accumulated inventory. xxviii. When imports nearly doubled during the period of investigation, the applicants' inventories sharply increased. The applicants have been forced to intermittently suspend its production due to low priced imports from the subject countries. xxix. The impact of dumped imports was at such extent that the applicants’ plants were cumulatively shut down for more than 100 days in the period of investigation alone. xxx. The cash profit and PBIT of the applicants declined in the period of investigation compared to previous year. The profit earned by applicants during the period of investigation is lower than the profits earned in the period impacted by Covid. xxxi. The cash profit and PBIT declined by 94% and 75% in the period of investigation compared to previous year. As a result, the ROI of the applicants sharply declined. xxxii.The applicants recorded lowest ROI in the period of investigation, which is even below the fixed deposit rate offered by the bank. xxxiii. The applicants could have aligned their selling price with the cost, however the landed price of subject imports declined by 32 index points, forcing the applicants to sell the product at loss. xxxiv. On the submission that the raw material prices have impacted the performance, the increase in raw material price has equally impacted the producers from the subject countries. The other interested parties have not provided any information on the claim of the decline in the prices of raw material. There is a difference of [***] between consumption price and purchase price of acrylonitrile. xxxv.The cost of raw materials, utilities, consumables, salaries, primary packing, and selling overheads constitutes 90% of expenses. A decline in production due to lower exports and internal transfers cannot lead to high fixed costs which could impact the domestic market performance. xxxvi. On the submission of the interested parties on the statements in the annual report, while the Authority is concerned with performance and domestic operations of the domestic industry over the injury whereas the annual reports focus on the product under consideration and company over all operations. G.3 Examination by the Authority 78. The Authority has taken note of various submissions made by the applicants and other interested parties on injury and causal link and has analyzed the same, considering the facts available on record in light of applicable laws. The injury analysis made by the Authority addresses the various submissions made by the applicants and other interested parties. 79. As regards the submission that the domestic industry has procured acrylonitrile at higher prices which has led to high costs, it is clarified that the Authority has relied upon information from the books of accounts. The same is consistent with the practice of the Authority. The cost of sales is calculated based on the consumption price of the raw material for the entire year. 80. As regards submission on statements in the annual reports stating that tough competition from natural fibre and a decline in demand for the product have been a cause of injury, the Authority notes that statements made in the annual report pertain to the company’s overall performance, and presents macro-economic situation relating to the products. The performance may not be representative of the performance of the product under consideration during the investigation period and how imports have impacted the domestic industry. Further, it is seen that the demand or consumption for the product has declined. However, despite the same, the imports from subject countries have increased. Thus, increase in imports at dumped price when demand has fallen itself establishes that dumping has caused material injury to the domestic industry. It is also seen that one of the applicants (Indian Acrylics Limited) has identified, in its annual report, low priced imports as a cause of injury. It is also relevant that the Authority is concerned with margin of dumping and not reasons for dumping, while annual reports may explain these reasons for benefit of the shareholders. 81. As regards submission on an increase in the capital employed without an increase in the capacity, the Authority notes that changes in the capital employed are attributable to changes in the working capital deployed by the domestic industry. The net fixed assets deployed by the domestic industry have in fact declined. The Authority also notes that an increase in capital employed need not be limited to an increase in the capacity. The increase in the capital employed may be due to a number of factors such as a change in plant and machinery, an increase in the working capital, etc. In the present case, the capital employed has increased because the working capital of the domestic industry has increased which has led to an increase in the capital employed. 82. Regarding the submission that only Indian Acrylics Limited has incurred losses while the other two applicants have shown profits, the Authority notes that, in accordance with Rule 11(2) of the Rules, the assessment of injury must be based on the domestic industry as a whole, rather than on individual companies. Since the domestic industry has been defined to include Indian Acrylics Limited and Pasupati Acrylon Limited, the injury analysis has been conducted collectively for these two producers. Moreover, even when the arguments of the other interested are considered, it is seen from the information provided by them that both Pasupati Acrylon Limited and Vardhaman Acrylic Limited have also experienced a steep decline in profits. 83. It has been stated by the interested parties and the applicants that the performance was also impacted by Covid-19. The Authority notes that the Covid conditions prevailed during the year 2020-21 and 2021-22. The applicants too have requested that a comparison may be made with 2022-23. The Authority notes that the purpose of determining a period of investigation and the complete injury period for injury assessment is to consider the performance of the domestic industry for the entire period of four years. Therefore, the Authority has compared the performance of the domestic industry from the base year. However, performance in the intervening period has been given due weightage in injury analysis. Cumulative Assessment 84. Para (iii) of Annexure II of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides that in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti- dumping investigation. the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: a. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as a percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and b. Cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles. 85. The Authority notes that: a. The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margins of dumping from each of the subject countries are more than the de-minimis limits prescribed under the Rules. b. The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of the total volume of imports. c. Cumulative assessments of the effects of imports are appropriate as the exports from the subject countries not only directly compete with the like articles offered by each of them but also the like articles offered by the applicants in the Indian market. 86. With regard to the contention that imports from Peru should not be cumulatively assessed due to differences in competitive conditions between imports from Peru and imports from other subject countries, the Authority notes that the information on record shows that users are procuring the product under consideration from Peru and other subject countries. It is also seen that the price of the product under consideration from Peru and other subject countries has moved in tandem. Therefore, the Authority does not find it appropriate to decumulate the imports from Peru and other subject countries. 87. In view of the above, the Authority considers that it is appropriate to assess injury to the domestic industry cumulatively from imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. 88. Rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping Rules read with Annexure II provides that an injury determination shall involve examination of factors that may indicate injury to the domestic industry, “... taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles..”. In considering the effect of the dumped imports on prices, it is considered necessary to examine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. For the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry in India, indices having a bearing on the state of the industry such as production, capacity utilization, sales volume, inventory, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping, etc. have been considered in accordance with Annexure II of the anti-dumping rules. H.4.1 Assessment of demand/apparent consumption 89. For determination of demand/apparent consumption of the product in India, the Authority has considered the sum of the domestic sales of the applicants and imports from subject countries and imports from other countries. +----+----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | SN | Demand/Consumption | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +----+----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | 1 | Sales of domestic industry | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Trend | Index| 100 | 101 | 127 | 102 | | 2 | Sales of Vardhaman Acrylics| MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | | | Ltd. | | | | | | | | Trend | Index| 100 | 72 | 112 | 101 | | 3 | Imports from subject countries| MT | 11,859 | 14,778 | 14,164 | 19,235 | | 4 | Imports from other countries| MT | 24,456 | 14,819 | 6,545 | 6,366 | | 5 | Total Demand in India | MT | 1,02,846 | 91,348 | 1,02,414 | 93,366 | | 6 | Trend | Index| 100 | 89 | 100 | 91 | +----+----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ 90. It is seen that the demand for the product under consideration declined in 2021-22, increased in 2022-23, and then declined again during the period of investigation. The applicants have submitted that, given the nature of the product, its demand follows a cyclical trend. The applicants have provided information on historical demand for the product which shows that while demand has declined in certain years, it has subsequently increased in later years. H.4.2 Volume effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry 91. With regards to the volume of dumped imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. For the purpose of the injury analysis, the Authority has relied on the DG system import data. The information is as below: +----+-----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | SN | Particulars | Unit | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | POI | +----+-----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | A | Imports volume | | | | | | | 1 | Imports from subject countries| MT | 11,859 | 14,778 | 14,164 | 19,235 | | 2 | Imports from other countries| MT | 24,456 | 14,819 | 6,545 | 6,366 | +----+-----------------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ +---+-------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | 3 | Total imports | MT | 36,315 | 29,597 | 20,709 | 25,601 | +---+-------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ | B | Subject Imports in relation to | | | | | | | 1 | India consumption | % | 12% | 16% | 14% | 21% | | | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 140 | 120 | 179 | | 2 | India production | % | 22% | 30% | 19% | 34% | | | Trend | Indexed| 100 | 138 | 90 | 159 | | 3 | Total imports | % | 33% | 50% | 68% | 75% | +---+-------------------+------+----------+----------+----------+--------+ 92. It is seen that: - a. The volume of imports from subject countries increased in 2021-22, very marginally declined in 2022-23 and increased significantly again in the period of investigation. b. While the imports from subject countries have increased, the imports from other countries have declined in 2022-23, with a very marginal increase in the period of investigation. c. Despite the Indian industry having sufficient capacity to meet the entire domestic demand, and the demand for the product declined during the period of investigation, imports from the subject countries have increased. d. The imports from subject countries have increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production and consumption. The imports in relation to production and consumption increased in 2021-22, declined in 2022-23 and then increased again in the period of investigation. The imports in absolute terms and in relative terms are highest in the period of investigation. e. The share of imports from subject countries increased to 75% in total imports in India during the period of investigation from 33% in base year. The share of imports from subject countries increased throughout the injury period. 93. The applicants have submitted that there is only one producer in Thailand, namely Thai Acrylics Limited (TAF). Thailand was subjected to anti-dumping measures for more than two decades. TAF is the sole producer in Thailand, with a production capacity of 1,15,000 MT against a domestic demand of only 5,000 MT. TAF initially set up a 14,000 MT production capacity, but has continuously increased its capacity without any corresponding increase in domestic demand. From the response filed by the producer, it is seen that the domestic sales are [***] MT against the capacity of [***] MT. It is claimed that the export price from Thailand to India is consistently lower than the export price to other markets. The table below shows the export prices from Thailand to India and the rest of the world: +----+---------+-------+-----------+----------------+----------+ | SN | Month | UOM | India | Rest of the | Difference | | | | | | world | | +----+---------+-------+-----------+----------------+----------+ | 1 | Apr-23 | ₹/MT | 1,73,173 | 1,79,791 | 6618 | | 2 | May-23 | ₹/MT | 1,66,467 | 1,77,866 | 11399 | | 3 | Jun-23 | ₹/MT | 1,48,501 | 1,63,315 | 14814 | | 4 | Jul-23 | ₹/MT | 1,31,911 | 1,49,934 | 18024 | | 5 | Aug-23 | ₹/MT | 1,32,606 | 1,41,138 | 8532 | | 6 | Sep-23 | ₹/MT | 1,30,892 | 1,43,469 | 12577 | | 7 | Oct-23 | ₹/MT | 1,38,971 | 1,43,999 | 5028 | | 8 | Nov-23 | ₹/MT | 1,48,012 | 1,58,205 | 10193 | | 9 | Dec-23 | ₹/MT | 1,37,731 | 1,51,146 | 13416 | | 10 | Jan-24 | ₹/MT | 1,39,831 | 1,48,796 | 8964 | | 11 | Feb-24 | ₹/MT | 1,46,092 | 1,51,754 | 5662 | | 12 | Mar-24 | ₹/MT | 1,44,624 | 1,51,787 | 7163 | +----+---------+-------+-----------+----------------+----------+ Source: Trade map data provided by the applicants’ HS code 550130 and 550330. (Written submissions) 94. It has also been submitted that China was earlier a net importer of the product. However, Chinese producers have established significant production capacities. As a result, China has transitioned from being a net importer to a net exporter. The volume of imports by China declined from 139 KT in 2015 to 22 KT in 2022. H.4.3 Price effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry 95. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on the prices, it is required to be analyzed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress the prices or prevent the price increase, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject countries with reference to the price undercutting and price suppression/ depression, if any. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of production and the selling price of the domestic industry have been compared with the landed price of the imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. a. Price undercutting 96. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the net sales realisation of the domestic industry has been compared with the landed value of imports from the subject countries. Accordingly, the undercutting effects of dumped imports from the subject countries work out as follows: 97. The table below shows the price undercutting with respect to imports from Thailand. +----+-----------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ | SN | Thailand | Import volume in MT | Selling price | Landed price | Undercutting | | | | | ₹/MT | ₹/MT | ₹/MT % | +----+-----------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+--------------+ | 1 | P11 | *** | *** | 1,31,585 | *** *** | | 2 | P12 | *** | *** | 1,58,461 | *** *** | | 3 | P21