Product description –Glass Fibre including assembled and direct rovings, chopped strands, and chopped strand mats

HSN Heading– 7019

Uses – The product is used in aerospace, ballistics, defense & security, infrastructure and public works, automobile, heavy transportation, Marine, electrical, electronics & telecommunications, sports & leisure, consumer goods & business equipment and wind energy.  

Countries Involved – Bahrain, China and Thailand

Applicant – Owens Corning (India) Private Limited

Period of investigation – 1^st April 2023 to 31^st March 2024

Injury period – 1^st April 2020 to 31^st March 2021, 1^st April 2021 to 31^st March 2022, 1^st April 2022 to 31^st March 2023 and the period of investigation

Margins and recommended duties –

Country	Producer	Dumping Margin	Injury Margin	Duty
		(%)	(%)	(USD/MT)
Bahrain	CPIC Abahsain Fiberglass W.L.L	60-70	35-45	238
	Others	70-80	40-50	254
China	Jushi Group Co., Ltd. (Tongxiang), Jushi Group Chengdu Co., Ltd. and Jushi Group Jiujiang Co., Ltd.	70-80	40-50	274
	Taishan Fiberglass Zoucheng Co., Ltd., Taishan Fiberglass Zibo, Inc and Taishan Fiberglass Inc	80-90	20-30	194
	Non-Sampled Co-operative Producers.	70-80	30-40	264
	Others	70-80	40-50	295
Thailand	Asia Composite Materials (Thailand) Co. Ltd.	50-60	70-80	266
	Wanda New (Thailand) Co., Ltd.	50-60	15-25	202
	Others	90-100	120-130	394

Key Findings –

1. The product under consideration is Glass Fibre including assembled and direct rovings, chopped strands, and chopped strand mats.
2. There is no need for exclusion of any product for which the domestic industry had manufactured and supplied like article. H-glass, Thermoset chopped strands, direct rovings with various tex, multi-end rovings with 2400 tex and chopped stand mats with 300 tex and 450 tex have not been excluded.
3. The product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the product imported from the subject countries.
4. The negligible imports of the domestic industry from its related Chinese entity do not affect its eligibility as the domestic industry.
5. OCIPL is an independent company and had no control of Praana group during the period of investigation, therefore, there is no need to re-evaluate standing.
6. The Authority has undertaken sampling due to large number of responses from China.
7. The dumping margin quantified by the Authority is positive and significant.
8. As the conditions of cumulation have been met in the present case, the Authority has cumulatively assessed the impact of imports.
9. The demand for the subject goods including and excluding captive consumption in India has consistently increased over the injury period.
10. The volume of subject imports has increased in absolute and relative terms and are in excess of the demand-supply gap in India.
11. The price undercutting from all subject countries is positive and significant.
12. Despite stable capacity, the production of the domestic industry for the merchant market, domestic sales, and capacity utilisation have declined.
13. The selling price of the domestic industry has been adversely impacted by the subject imports as the subject imports are priced below both the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry.
14. The market share of the domestic industry has declined while that of the subject imports have increased.
15. The inventories of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period.
16. The profitability, cash profits, and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have declined over the injury period.
17. The injury margin is both positive and significant.
18. The ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has been adversely impacted due to dumping in India.
19. The non-injurious price was determined as per the consistent practice of the Authority and by considering 22% return on capital employed.
20. The deterioration in the economic parameters of the domestic industry cannot be attributed to any known factor other than dumping.
21. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will not be against public interest as it will provide fair playing field to Indian industry.
22. The anti-dumping duty imposed previously did not negatively impact the users.
23. Demand-Supply gap is not a justification for dumping in India.
24. The Indian industry has made substantial investment for expansion of capacities in India.
25. There is no evidence of inefficiencies of the applicant as it was profitable in the past even after expiry of the anti-dumping duty.