Final Findings issued recommending continuation of anti-dumping duty on imports of Glass Fiber and Article from China PR (27.08.2021)

Product description – Glass fibre, including glass roving (assembled rovings (AR), direct rovings (DR)), glass chopped strands (CS), glass chopped strands mats (CSM),

Product exclusions – glass wool, fibre glass wool, fibre glass insulation in wool form, glass yarn, glass woven fabrics, glass fibre fabric, glass woven rovings, chopped strands meant for thermoplastic applications, micro glass fibre with fibre diameter in the range of 0.3 to 2.5 microns, surface mat/surface veil/tissue, wet chopped strands and Cemfil (alkali resistant glass fibre for concrete reinforcement).

HS Codes – 7019

Uses – It is used in thermal insulation, electrical insulation, reinforcement of various materials, tent poles, sound absorption, heat and corrosion resistant fabrics, high strength fabrics, pole vault poles, arrows, bows and crossbows, translucent roofing panels, automobile bodies, hockey sticks, surfboards, boat hulls, and paper honeycomb.

Country involved – China PR. 

Applicants – Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited and Owens-Corning Industries (India) Private Limited.

Date of imposition of duty 4th March 2011. The present duties are applicable till 31st October 2021.

Date of Initiation – 25th September 2020.

Period of Investigation – 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2021.

Injury Period – 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 and the period of investigation.

Margin and proposed duty –

Country Producers Dumping Margin (Range) Injury Margin (Range) Duty as % of CIF value
China PR Chongqing Polycomp International Corporation (CPIC) 10-20% 5-15% 8.67%
China PR Jushi Group Company Limited and Jushi Group Jiujiang Company Limited 15-25% 25-35% 18.49%
China PR Taishan Fiberglass Inc., Sinoma Jinjing Fiber Glass (Zibo) Co., Ltd. and Taishan Fiberglass Zoucheng Co., Ltd. 15-25% 25-35% 18.36%
China PR Any other producer 45-55% 50-60% 49.90%

Key Findings –

  1. Only a product type imported into the country, but not produced by the domestic industry can be excluded from the scope of product under consideration.
  2. Since H glass and ECR glass have mostly common raw materials, similar technical process, same equipment and slight difference in cost, they are not required to be treated as separate PCNs.
  3. Related producers shall be treated as one single entity for the purpose of determination of domestic industry. Even if one of the related producer ceased production during the injury period, they can still be considered within the scope of domestic industry for the period of operation.
  4. Where the domestic producer has not imported the product from the subject countries during the period of investigation, it cannot be considered ineligible to constitute domestic industry.
  5. Where there is no information to show that exceptional circumstances exist, as envisaged under proviso to Rule 2(b), captive production and production for merchant sales cannot be considered as operating in two separate competitive markets.
  6. Despite duties in force, dumping has continued and the domestic industry has suffered material injury.
  7. The likelihood of continued dumping and injury in the absence of duties is evident from increase in imports despite duties at a faster rate than increase in demand, significant production capacities held by producers in subject country, decline in price of imports and imports below cost of sales of the domestic industry.
  8. Some of the exporters had contended that likelihood examination should be conducted with regard to their parameters individually, and not for country as a whole. However, since the responding exporters were found to be dumping in the period of investigation, it could not be concluded that they are not likely to dump in the absence of duties.
  9. Even with the duties in force, the performance of users has improved over the period. No cogent evidence has been adduced substantiating adverse impact of duties.