Final Findings Issued Recommending Imposition Of Anti-Dumping Duty Against Imports Of Acrylic Fibre From Belarus, European Union, Peru And Ukraine (01.09.2020)

Product description – The product under consideration is Acrylic Fibre of all types. Acrylic Fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of atleast 90% by weight of Acrylonitrile units (major raw material for production). 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. Homopolymer Acrylic Fibre containing 100% Acrylonihile has been excluded from the scope of the PUC.

HS Codes – The product is classified under Chapter 55 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the subheading 5501, 5503 and 5506 at 4-digit level. Customs classification of Acrylic Fibre is 5501.3000, 5503.3000 and 5506.3000.

Uses – Acrylic fibre is primarily used in the apparel industry to make sweaters, tracksuits, linings, etc. lt is also used in the production of carpets and furnishing fabrics.

Country involved – Belarus, European Union, Peru and Ukraine.

Applicants M/s. Indian Acrylics Limited, M/s. Vardhman Acrylics Limited, and M/s. Pasupati Acrylon Limited. M/s Vardhaman Acrylics Ltd. excluded from scope of the Domestic Industry by the Designated Authority.

Date of initiation – 24-09-2019

Period of investigation – April 2018 to March 2019

Injury period – 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and the period of investigation.

Dumping margin, Injury Margin & Proposed Duty – The following exporter specific dumping margin, injury margin and proposed duty has been determined by the Designated Authority:

Producer Dumping margin Range Injury Margin Range Proposed Duty (US$/MT)
European Union – Dralon GmbH 10-20 Negative NIL
European Union – Any other exporters 30-40 0-10 212.98
Ukraine 20-30 0-10 159.07
Peru 10-20 0-10 190.38
Belarus 10-20 0-10 114.97

Key findings –

  1. There is no bar on the number of times a domestic industry can apply for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning the same product.
  2. Imports of PUC have increased in absolute terms over the POI. There is positive price undercutting/underselling and price suppression due to low priced dumped imports into the country. The domestic industry’s profitability has reduced during the POI.
  3. The imports from non-subject countries (except Thailand, against which the Authority is conducting a parallel Sunset Review investigation) are not significant in terms of volume so as to cause or threaten to cause injury.
  4. The PUC has been exported to India from the subject countries below its associated normal value and therefore, resulting to dumping.
  5. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to the dumping of the PUC from the subject countries.