Product Description – The product under consideration is Cellophane Transparent Film (CTF). The product is a re-generated cellulose film made from wood pulp. It is a non-toxic and biodegradable film of glass clear transparency available in sheet and roll forms. It is used as a packaging material, majorly in the firecracker industry and additionally to pack and wrap sweets, fruits and food items, candies, confectionaries, gifts, soaps, etc.  

HS Codes – The product is classified under Chapter 39 and Chapter 48 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and imported under 39207111 and 48239090. The customs classification is only indicative, and the same is not binding.

Country Involved – China PR

Applicant – Kesoram Rayon, a unit of Cygnet Industries Ltd.

Date of Initiation – 30^th September 2023

Period of investigation – 1^st April 2022 to 31^st March 2023

Injury Period – 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021- 2022 and the period of investigation.

Proposed margin and duty – The Authority recommended a fixed form of anti-dumping duty, and the proposed duty ranged from 0 $/MT to 1.34 $/MT.        

Producer	Dumping Margin %	Injury Margin %	Duty USD/MT
Shandong Henglian New Material	5-20	Negative	nil
Any other producers	60-70	30-40	1.34

Key Findings –

1. The product under consideration is “Cellophane Transparent Film,” originating in or exported from China PR.
2. There is no significant difference in the product under consideration of different GSMs, grades, quality, or any type, so all types of cellophane are within the scope of the product under consideration.
3. The domestic industry is the only producer of subject goods in the country, accounting for 100 % of Indian production.
4. The volume of imports from the subject country increased by 300% during the period of investigation, capturing nearly 50-60% of the Indian market despite the domestic industry having sufficient capacity to meet the entire domestic demand.
5. Average import prices from the subject country concerned were consistently lower than the Indian producer’s prices, thus undercutting the prices of the domestic industry throughout the injury period.
6. The cost of sales and the selling price of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. however, the increase in cost was more than the increase in selling price. Subject imports priced even below the cost of sales led to price suppression in the market.
7. The capacity of the domestic industry has remained constant throughout. The domestic industry has faced a steep decline in production and sales as compared to the base year and the previous year.
8. The difference in cost of sales and import price has been highest in the POI. The applicant’s financial losses have aggravated significantly in the POI. PBIT, cash profits and ROI have followed the same trend as profits.
9. Inventories of the domestic industry have increased significant in the POI. Closing stock at the end of the POI was over ten times the opening stock in the POI.
10. Dumped imports have adversely affected the growth of the domestic industry in respect of both volume and price parameters.
11. No other factor has caused injury to the domestic industry.
12. Only the domestic industry submitted quantified information establishing that the impact of the proposed anti-dumping duty on the end users. The percentage of subject goods and its cost to the downstream industry is quite low and any impact of account of duties would be negligible.