Anti-dumping investigation concerning import of Acrylic Fibre from Belarus - Final Findings

Anti-dumping investigation concerning import of Acrylic Fibre from Belarus - Final Findings

Published: 27 Jul 2010 01:47:22 PST

No. 14/5/2003-DGAD - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, thereof.


2. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigations:-

The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as Authority), under the above Rules, received a written application from the Forum of Acrylic Fibres Manufacturers, New Delhi through the participating companies, viz., M/s. Indian Acrylics Ltd., Chandigarh, M/s. Consolidated Fibres and Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata, M/s. Pasupati Acrylon Ltd., New Delhi and supported by M/s Indian Petrochemicals and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara and M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana, alleging dumping of Acrylic Fibre (hereinafter referred to as subject goods) originating in and exported from Belarus (hereinafter referred to as subject country);

Preliminary scrutiny of the application revealed certain deficiencies, which were rectified by the applicants;

The Authority notified the Embassy of subject country in India about the receipt of dumping application made by the petitioner before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 supra;

The Authority issued a Public Notice dated 1st July, 2003 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating anti dumping proceedings concerning imports of Acrylic Fibre covered under heading/subheading 5501.30 and 5503.30 of Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act;

The Authority forwarded copy of the said public notice to the known exporters, importers and to the complainants and gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing;

According to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 supra, the Authority provided a copy of the application to the following known exporters and Embassy of subject country in India;

JSC "Polymir" 211440, Novopolotsk, Vitebsk Region, Republic Of Belarus.

Novopoliteks Llc 208, West State Street, Trenton, New Jearsey, USA

Pumica Trading Corp. Ltd. Tisha Street Riga Latvia

Request was made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) to arrange details of imports of subject goods;

The Embassy of the subject country was informed about the initiation of the investigation in accordance with Rule 6(2) with a request to advise the exporters/producers from their country to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time. A copy of the letter, petition and questionnaire sent to the exporters was also sent to them;

A questionnaire was sent to the following known importers/users/industry's associations of subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4);

Vardhman Spinning&Gen. Mills Ltd. Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana - 141 001. PUNJAB

Nahar Spinning Mills Limited, 373, Industrial Area - A, Ludhiana - 141 003. PUNJAB

Malwa Cotton Spg./Mills Ltd. Industrial Area - A, Ludhiana - 141 003. PUNJAB

Rajasthan Spinning&Weaving Mills Ltd. Bhilwara Bhawan, 40-41, Comm Centre, New Delhi - 110 065.

Winsome Textile Industries Limited SCO 144 - 145, Sector 34A, Chandigarh - 160 022.

Siddartha Super Spinning Mills Ltd. 211, Gagan Deep, 12, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110 008.

Bhiwani Textiles Mills Bhiwani District Hisar HARYANA

Adinath Textiles Limited Village : Bholapur PO Sahabana, Mundia Ludhiana (Punjab).

Shruti Synthetics Limited, Village : Loyaran, Gagunda Road, Udaipur, RAJASTHAN

Indian Spinners' Association, C/o The Millowners' Association, Elphinstone Building, 10, Veer Nariman Road,Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.

Ludhiana Spinners Association, 75, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana - 141 003.

The Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 27th April, 2004. All parties presenting views were requested to file written submissions of their views expressed. The parties were advised to collect copies of the views expressed by the opposing parties and offer rebuttals, if any;

The Authority made available to all interested parties the public file containing non-confidential version of evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection, upon request as per Rule 6(7);

Arguments made by the interested parties after initiation of the investigation, subsequent to the public hearing have been appropriately dealt in the disclosure statement. Arguments made in response to the disclosures have been dealt with in these findings;

In accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules supra, the essential facts/basis considered for these findings were disclosed to known interested parties on 26th October, 2004 vide a disclosure statement and comments received on the same have also been duly considered in these findings;

Cost investigations including spot verification (as deemed necessary) of the domestic industry were also conducted to work out optimum cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods in India on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the information furnished by the domestic industry;

The Authority conducted on the spot verification of information furnished by the exporter M/s JSC Polymir, Novopolotsk, Belarus;

*** in this notification represents information furnished by the interested parties on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules;

The investigation covered the period from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003. The injury analysis covered the three preceding years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and the POI.

Copies of the Initiation Notice were also sent to FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM etc. for wider circulation.


3. The views expressed by various interested parties have been discussed in the disclosure statement. The views which have not been discussed earlier in the disclosure statement and those now raised in response to the disclosure statement are discussed in the relevant paragraphs herein below to the extent these are relevant as per rules and have a bearing upon the case. The arguments raised by the interested parties have been examined, considered and, wherever appropriate, dealt in the relevant paragraphs herein below.

4. After the initiation of the investigation, response had been received from the following:

Exporter: -

M/s JSC Polymir, Novopolotsk, Belarus;


On behalf of the importers, Indian Spinners Association (ISA) submitted arguments. However, none of the importers submitted questionnaire response. The Authority had also advised ISA to impress upon the importers to file questionnaire response. The domestic industry has argued that ISA does not have locus standi to represent the interest of spinners. The Authority considered the arguments made by the domestic industry as regards the claim of ISA to represent the interests of Spinning Industry. ISA has represented the spinners in the earlier investigation concerning imports of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) and Acrylic Fibre. The Authority considered it appropriate to examine the arguments made by ISA in this investigation.

5. Product under Consideration :

The product under consideration in this investigation is Acrylic Fibre in all Deniers (hereinafter referred as subject goods). Acrylic Fibre is a long chain of synthetic polymer composed of at least 90% by weight of Acrylonitrile units. Acrylic Fibre can be Acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow or acrylic top. Petitioners have claimed that Acrylic Fibre is classified under Chapter 55 of Customs Tariff Classification Major Heads 5501 and 5503 with respective six digit classification 5501.30 and 5503.30. These Custom classifications are however, indicative only and are in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation. It has been argued by ISA that acrylic fibre and tow are two distinct and different items, which cannot be clubbed together. There are two separate Customs classification, one for tow and another for fibre. While fibre is used as raw materials on spindles, tow is used for knitting purposes. It has also been argued by ISA that Authority should have asked the domestic industry to segregate data and submit the same for unbiased consideration. It has been argued by the exporter M/s JSC Polymir that they did not produce mod acrylic fibre during the investigation period and hence did not sell it. The acrylic fibre should be distinguished from mod acrylic fibre due to technical characteristics and consumer properties, price factor. Acrylic and mod acrylic fibre are not like article in all respects and there are no features proving their close similarity.

The Authority has considered these arguments, and is of the view that acrylic fibre and tow are produced by the same manufacturing process. Tow is long and continuous chain of fibre and staple fibre is cut in various lengths as per the requirement of the consumers. The domestic producers produce both forms. The producers of acrylic fibre report their entire annual reports mentioning the product as acrylic fibre only. The issue had also been decided by the Hon'ble CESTAT in an appeal No.C/73/99-AD of M/s Oswal Woollen Mills in the matter of final findings issued by the Designated Authority in respect of imports of acrylic fibre from Japan, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The Authority holds that the product under consideration is acrylic fibre which can be acrylic staple fibre, acrylic tow or acrylic top. As regards the arguments of M/s JSC Polymir regarding mod acrylic fibre, Authority found that the exporter had neither produced nor exported mod acrylic fibre during the POI. The domestic industry had also produced acrylic fibre in the POI. The comparison is being made between the acrylic fibre only and there was no requirement to make any separate calculation for mod acrylic fibre.

Source from:


Partners: Social Network