Final Findings issued recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Vinyl Tiles from China PR and Taiwan (23.01.2023)

Product description – Vinyl Tiles, other than in roll or sheet form, having minimum tile thickness of 2.5 mm and a maximum tile thickness of 8 mm, with protective layer having thickness in range of 0.15 mm to 0.7 mm. The product under consideration is also known as luxury vinyl tiles, luxury vinyl flooring, stone plastic composite, SPC, PVC flooring tiles, PVC tiles, rigid vinyl tiles or rigid vinyl flooring in market parlance.

HS Codes – UDCA falls under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, under code 3918 10 90. However, it is also imported under 3918 10 10, 3918 90 10, 3918 90 20 and 3918 90 90.

Uses – Vinyl tiles are used for flooring purposes. They may be applied through the use of adhesives or laid using click and lock technology.

Countries involved – China PR and Taiwan

Applicant – Welspun Flooring Limited (WFL), Welspun Global Brands Limited (WGBL) and Welspun India Limited

Date of Initiation – 24th January 2022

Period of Investigation – 1st October 2020- 30th September 2021 (12 months)

Injury Period – 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and the POI.

Margin and proposed duty –

Country Dumping Margin Injury Margin Proposed duty
China PR 50-60% 20-30% $ 2.05 per sqm
Taiwan 40-50% 10-20% $ 1.44 per sqm

Key Findings –

  1. In the absence of participation by exporters, PCN notified by the Authority may not be considered in the determination of dumping margin and injury margin, if the import data does not allow for identification of PCN and the participating importers represent a small share of imports.
  2. Even though WFL and WGBL were related entities, with the former engaged in production of the subject goods, while the latter was engaged in sale of goods in the market, and other activities, only the producer was considered as part of domestic industry.
  3. The concept of single economic entity does not apply to the related entities in the present case, since while WFL was at a nascent stage, WGBL has been operating in the market for considerable time.
  4. The data relating to WGBL was not considered in the determination of non-injurious price and injury margin.
  5. Since the case related to an unestablished industry, the Authority compared the actual performance with the projected performance.
  6. As a result of the imports, the domestic industry had not been able to achieve the projected production, and its capacity utilization was low. Further, it was able to sell only a small part of its production in the domestic market, and was facing accumulation of inventories.
  7. The imports were priced below the target price and actual price of the domestic industry, and had prevented it from achieving its target price.
  8. The profitability of the domestic industry was only 1% of its projected profitability.
  9. The fact that the non-injurious price is lower than the net sales realization is not relevant since the present case relates to material retardation of the industry.