Product description – The product under consideration is Viscose rayon filament yarn/ thread classifiable under customs classification 5403, excluding yarn produced through the spool spun technology.  Ready to use embroidery thread classifiable under customs classification code 5401 is excluded from the scope of present investigation. Both dyed and undyed yarn are within the scope of product under consideration.

HS Codes -The product under consideration does not have dedicated classification. The product falls under chapter 54 of Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and classified under 5403. The product is imported under various codes such as 54031000, 54031090, 54033100, 54033200, 54034110, 54034120, 54034130, 54034150, 54034170 and 54034190.

Uses – Textile clothing sector in manufacturing of woven fabrics, home furnishings and others.

Countries involved – China PR

Applicant – Association of Man-Made Fiber Industry Limited and Grasim Industries Limited.

Period of investigation– 1^st April 2021 to 31^st March 2022 (12 months)

Injury Period– 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and the period of investigation.

Margin and proposed duty

Authority recommended anti-dumping duty as a percentage of CIF value of the import price of the subject goods and the proposed duties for different exporter range from 5.48% to 20.87%.

Producers	Dumping Margin%	Injury Margin%	Duty % as CIF
Yibin Hiest Fibre Limited Corporation, Yibin Changxin Thread Co.Ltd and Gaoxian Changxin Thread Co.Ltd (Hiest Group)	20-30%	10-20%	12.98%
Xinxiang Chemical Fibre Co.Ltd	0-10%	10-20%	5.48%
Jilin Enka Viscose Co. Ltd and Jilin Chemical Fibre Stock Co.Ltd (Jilin Group)	0-10%	0-10%	6.72%
Other producers	20-30%	10-20%	20.87%

Key findings:

1. The product under consideration includes product produced either through bamboo, cotton, and wood pulp as there is no difference in the product produced using all three raw materials. Low glue dull yarn is also within the product scope.
2. The other interested party alleged that yarn produce by the domestic industry is not suitable to run on air jet machines. However, the domestic industry has provided invoices of sales made to spinners who use the product under consideration on air jet machines.
3. China does not have the technology to produce the product under consideration through SSY technology. SSY technology is only available in India and Europe. Additionally, the performance of SSY division has been unimpacted despite increase in imports from China PR. Authority did not include VFY produced from SSY technology within the product scope.
4. Baoding Hengjin filed an exporter questionnaire response. However, the Authority did not grant an individual duty as Baoding Hengjin is only involved in converting one form of product under consideration to another form, making him ineligible to claim individual margins.
5. PCN wise analysis shows that the subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, leading to suppression of prices on the domestic industry price.
6. Three groups of producers from China have participated along with their exporters but the Authority has not undertaken sampling and determined dumping margin based on individual exporters responses.
7. In the year 2020-21, the plant of the domestic industry was operating during the lockdown phase, the Authority has removed the cost of shutdown in the injury analysis.
8. None of interested parties except domestic industry has quantified the impact of anti-dumping duty. The Authority noted that the impact on end consumers in insignificant.