Jute Product originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal
In force — no superseding record on file.
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
1 CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/2024
Government of India Department of Commerce Ministry of Commerce & Industry Directorate General of Trade Remedies
Final Findings
Mid Term Review investigation concerning imports of “Jute Products” originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal.
Pictographic presentation of Jute Products
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
2
F. No. 7/11/2024-DGTR
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building,
5, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
Dated: 25th June, 2026 Final Findings (Case no. AD (MTR)-02/2024)
Subject: - Mid Term Review investigation concerning imports of “Jute Products” originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal
F. No. 7/11/2024-DGTR: Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as “the Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as “the Rules” or “the AD Rules”) thereof;
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
umped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as “the Rules” or “the AD Rules”) thereof;
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Indian Jute Mills Association (“IJMA”) and AP Mesta Twine Mills Association (“AJMA”) (hereinafter also referred to as the “applicants”" or “applicant associations”) have filed an application on behalf of the domestic industry, for initiation of mid-term review to examine the need to enhance the anti-dumping duty on imports of Jute products (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject goods” or the “product under consideration” or the “PUC”) originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject countries”). The applicants have submitted that there is a need for enhancement of duty, since the export price of the product under consideration have declined, without a commensurate change in the cost of the raw material; and the foreign producers are exporting volumes in excess of their own capacity, indicating routing of goods produced by other producers.
Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the product under consideration was initiated vide notification dated 21st October 2015. Thereafter, the Authority, vide final findings Notification No. 14/19/2015-DGAD dated 20th October 2016, recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty, which was given effect vide Customs Notification No. 01/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 5th January 2017, as amended by Customs Notification No.
ber 2016, recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty, which was given effect vide Customs Notification No. 01/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 5th January 2017, as amended by Customs Notification No. 11/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 3rd April 2017.
The Authority subsequently, initiated an anti-circumvention investigation on 20th March 2018 concerning imports of “jute sacking cloth”, which is a penultimate stage product of 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
3 “Jute Sacking Bag” from Bangladesh. Vide Notification No. 7/3/2018-DGAD, dated 19th March 2019, the Authority recommended extension of the existing anti-dumping duty imposed on sacking bags, and the recommendations were implemented vide Customs Notification No. 24/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 18th June 2019.
Thereafter, a sunset review was initiated on 28th June 2021 and vide final findings Notification No. 7/9/2021-DGTR dated 30th September 2022, the Authority found a need for continuation of duties. The Central Government issued Notification No. 33/2022- Customs (ADD) dated 30th December 2022, continuing the imposition of duties for a further period of five years.
The present mid-term review was initiated in accordance with Section 9A of the Act, read with Rule 23(1A) of the Rules.
ntinuing the imposition of duties for a further period of five years.
The present mid-term review was initiated in accordance with Section 9A of the Act, read with Rule 23(1A) of the Rules. The Authority is required to review, on the basis of a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of any interested parties, as to whether the change in circumstances warrant modification of existing anti-dumping duty.
In view of the duly substantiated application with prima facie evidence and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the Rules, the Authority initiated mid- term review investigation vide Notification No.7/11/2024-DGTR dated 30th June 2025.
B. PROCEDURE
The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation:
7.1. Initiation
i. The Authority, issued a public notice published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary vide Notification No. 7/11/2024-DGTR dated 30th June 2025, initiating mid-term review investigation concerning imports of the subject goods from subject countries. ii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification along with questionnaire to Embassy of the subject countries in India, known producers / exporters from the subject countries, known importers / users, industry associations and the domestic industry as per the email addresses made available by the applicants and requested them to make their views known, in writing, within the prescribed time limit.
7.2. Circulation of non-confidential version of the application
i.
ade available by the applicants and requested them to make their views known, in writing, within the prescribed time limit.
7.2. Circulation of non-confidential version of the application
i. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the Embassies of the subject countries in India, the known producers/exporters, importers and users in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules.
7.3. Participation by producers / exporters 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
4
i. The Authority sent questionnaires to elicit relevant information to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
S.N. Producers/Exporters S.N. Producers/Exporters Bangladesh 1 Afzal fibers 2 Alijan Jute Mills 3 Alina Jute Mills 4 Amin Jute Mills 5 And lmpex 6 Asha Jute Industries 7 Aziz Fibres 8 Bagdad Dhaka 9 Bogra Jute Mills 10 Daulatpur Jute 11 Delta Jute Mills 12 Glory Jute Ltd 13 Golden Jute Mills 14 Hasan Jute Mills 15 Hazrat Shah Chandrapuri 16 Jaman Jute Mills 17 Janata Jute Mills 18 Jatio Jute Mills 19 Jessone Jute Industries 20 Jobaida Karim Jute 21 Joy Jule Mills 22 Jute Textile 23 Karnafully Jute 24 Keraniganj Jute Fibres 25 Khalishpur Jute 26 Laxman Jute Mills 27 M. M. Jute Fibre 28 Mouna Jute Mills 29 N.
baida Karim Jute 21 Joy Jule Mills 22 Jute Textile 23 Karnafully Jute 24 Keraniganj Jute Fibres 25 Khalishpur Jute 26 Laxman Jute Mills 27 M. M. Jute Fibre 28 Mouna Jute Mills 29 N. Abdul Malek 30 Nabrun Jute Mills 31 Natore Jute Mills 32 Nawhata Jute Mills 33 Northern Jute Mtg 34 Nowapara Jute Mills 35 Partex Jute Mills 36 Platinum Jubilee 37 Poddar Agro Industries 38 Pride Jute Mills 39 Purabi Trading 40 R. M. Jute Diversification 41 Rabeyu Jute Mills 42 Rajbari Jute Mills 43 Ranu Agro Industries 44 Reliance Jute Mills 45 Roman Jute Mills 46 Rupali Bangla 47 S Jute Industries 48 Sagar Jute Spinners 49 Shah Ismail Gazi 50 Shidlow Textile 51 Sonali Ansh Industries 52 Star Jute Mills 53 The Crescent Jute 54 Uttara Jute Fibres Nepal 1 Ambika 2 Trans Trade Service 3 Asahi Overseas Traders 4 General Overseas Agency 5 Ashok Trading Concern 6 Ghorashyar Enterprises 7 Atlantic Trading Concern 8 Golchha Organization 9 B.K. International 10 Greentex Enterprises 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
rseas Agency 5 Ashok Trading Concern 6 Ghorashyar Enterprises 7 Atlantic Trading Concern 8 Golchha Organization 9 B.K. International 10 Greentex Enterprises 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
5 11 Baba Enterprises 12 Gupta Enterprises 13 Balaju Enterprises 14 Him Interntaional (P) Ltd 15 Bhudeo Khadya Udyog 16 Indra Trade Concern 17 Bijaya Enterprises 18 Jalnex Enterprises 19 Sangam International Enterprises 20 Binit Enterprises 21 Khatu International 22 Brighter Industries (P) Ltd 23 Laxmi Concern 24 Chhagan Mall Traders 25
Madan Lal Chiranjibi Lal Chhyangle Trade Links 26
Mahesh Overseas Enterprises
27 Diamond Nepal Enterprises 28 Nepal United Company (P) Ltd 29 Digo International (P) Ltd 30 New Trade Centre 31 Dugar Brothers & Sons 32 Paban Overseas Concern 33 Dugar Organization 34 R & R Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 35 Exportex Trading 36 Rajshree Enterprises 37 Gaurav Impex
ii. Following producers/exporters from the subject countries have filed the exporter’s questionnaire response or made any submissions:
S.N. Producers/Exporters S.N. Producers/ Exporters Bangladesh 1 Afil Jute Weaving Mills Ltd. 2 Afzal Fiber Processing Industries 3 Ahyan Jute Mills Limited 4 Alijan Jute Mills Limited 5 Alina Jute Mills Limited 6 A. M.
oducers/ Exporters Bangladesh 1 Afil Jute Weaving Mills Ltd. 2 Afzal Fiber Processing Industries 3 Ahyan Jute Mills Limited 4 Alijan Jute Mills Limited 5 Alina Jute Mills Limited 6 A. M. Jute Industries Limited 7 Arnu Jute Mills Limited 8 Asha Jute Industries Limited 9
Bogra Jute Mills Limited
10
Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Ltd. 11 Chuadanga Jute Mill 12 Ecotrade International 13
Golden Jute Industries Limited
14
Hasan Jute & Spinning Mills Limited 15 Hasan Jute Mills Limited 16 Hasem Jute Industries Ltd. 17
Hazrat Shah Chandrapuri Jute Mills Ltd. 18
Jamuna Jute Industries Ltd.
19 Janata Jute Mills Limited 20 Lovely Jute Mills Limited 21 Mirza Jute Mills Ltd. 22 Mouna Jute Mills Ltd. 23 Natore Jute Mills 24 Nawhata Jute Mills Limited 25 Oriental Jute Mills Ltd. 26 Poddar Agro Industries 27 Rahman Jute Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 28 Rahman Jute Spinners (Pvt.) Ltd. 29 Rajbari Jute Mills Ltd. 30 Ranu Agro Industries Ltd. 31 Roman Jute Mills Limited 32 Sadat Jute Industries Limited 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Ltd. 28 Rahman Jute Spinners (Pvt.) Ltd. 29 Rajbari Jute Mills Ltd. 30 Ranu Agro Industries Ltd. 31 Roman Jute Mills Limited 32 Sadat Jute Industries Limited 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
6 33 Sagar Jute Spinning Mills Ltd. 34 Salim Agro Industries Limited 35 Sidlaw Textiles (Bangladesh) Ltd. 36 Sonali Aansh Industries Limited 37 Super Jute Mills Limited 38 Wahab Jute Mills Ltd. Nepal 39 Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd. 40 Baba Jute Mills Private Limited 41
Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited 42
Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited
43 Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd.
iii.
Considering the number of responding exporters/producers from the subject
countries, the Authority proposed sampling of producers from Bangladesh, vide
notification dated 2nd January 2026. After receiving comments from the interested
parties, the Authority notified the following sample, vide notification dated 10th
February 2026. The sample was determined on the basis of stratified sampling
methodology and included producers with different quantum of exports to India.
a.
Asha Jute Industries Ltd.
b. A. M. Jute Industries Ltd.
c.
Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd.
d. Ranu Agro Industries Ltd.
e.
Super Jute Mills Ltd.
f.
Bonanza Jute Composite
g. Lovely Jute Mills Ltd.
h. Natore Jute Mills
i.
Poddar Agro Industries
j.
Salim Agro Industries Ltd
7.4.
u Agro Industries Ltd.
e.
Super Jute Mills Ltd.
f.
Bonanza Jute Composite
g. Lovely Jute Mills Ltd.
h. Natore Jute Mills
i.
Poddar Agro Industries
j.
Salim Agro Industries Ltd
7.4. Participation by importers / users
i. Questionnaires were also sent to the following known importers, users and the associations of the subject goods in India seeking necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
S.N. Importers/Users S.N. Importers/Users 1 Ahmed Exports 2 Alamin Enterprise 3 Ashim kar & Industries P. Ltd. 4 B.G.Udyog 5 Bengal Jute & Bag Co. 6 Bhagtara Jute Industries Pvt. Ltd. 7 Birla Corporation Ltd. 8 Chamundi Explosives Pvt. Ltd. 9
Chiranjilal Gourishanker & Company 10
Clifton Business Pvt. Ltd.
11 G.N.Commercial Company 12 Gaba Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 13 Gyaniram Agarwal & Company 14 Industrial Associates 15 Industrial Associates Jute Pvt. Ltd. 16 J.J.Patel and Brothers 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
al Company 12 Gaba Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 13 Gyaniram Agarwal & Company 14 Industrial Associates 15 Industrial Associates Jute Pvt. Ltd. 16 J.J.Patel and Brothers 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
7 17 J.K.Sons & Company 18 J.K.Sons Jute Company Pvt. Ltd. 19 K.L.Jute Products Pvt. Ltd. 20 Knap International 21 Kosmic Hitech Motors Pvt. Ltd. 22 Mohan Jute Ltd. 23 Navin International 24 Pacific Jute Ltd. 25 Privi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 26 R. Harilal & Company (Calcutta) 27 Ramsaran & Sons 28 Romy Enterprises 29 Sarvamangla Pratishthan 30 Satyam lmpex 31 Satyendra Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 32 SDJ International 33 Srijoni lmpex 34 Tuhin Kanz & Co. 35 Unnati Overseas 36 Veer International 37 Vishwatma Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 38 Yucon Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 39 Eskay International 40 Golden Floor 41 Grover International 42 Radha Krishna 43 Rugs Creation 44 Nav Durga 45 Kailash Chand
ii. No response has been filed by any importer / user in the present investigation.
7.5. Period of investigation (POI) and injury period
i. The period of investigation (POI) for the purpose of the present review is April 2024 to March 2025 (12 Months). The injury investigation period shall cover the April 2021 to March 2022, April 2022 to March 2023, April 2023 to March 2024 and the POI.
he present review is April 2024 to March 2025 (12 Months). The injury investigation period shall cover the April 2021 to March 2022, April 2022 to March 2023, April 2023 to March 2024 and the POI. Since the present review investigation is based on changed circumstances, comparison will also be made with the period of investigation of the last concluded review investigation, that is, 2020-2021.
7.6. Further procedure
i. The Authority sent economic interest questionnaire to all known known producers/exporters, importers and users, domestic industry, and concerned ministry. The following parties have filed a response to the economic interest questionnaire.
S.N. Party
S.N. Party
1
Domestic industry
2
Afil Jute Weaving Mills Ltd.
3
Afzal Fiber Processing Industries
4
Ahyan Jute Mills Limited
5
Alijan Jute Mills Limited
6
Alina Jute Mills Limited
7
Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd.
8
Asha Jute Industries
9
Baba Jute Mills Private Limited
10
Bogra Jute Mills Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Jute Mills Limited 6 Alina Jute Mills Limited 7 Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd. 8 Asha Jute Industries 9 Baba Jute Mills Private Limited 10 Bogra Jute Mills Limited 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
8 11
Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Limited 12
Chuadanga Jute Mill
13 Ecotrade International 14 Golden Jute Industries Limited 15
Hasan Jute & Spinning Mills Limited 16
Hasan Jute Mills Limited
17
Hasem Jute Industries Ltd.
18
Hazrat Shah Chandrapuri Jute Mills Ltd. 19 Jamuna Jute Industries Ltd. 20 Janata Jute Mills Limited 21 Mirza Jute Mills Ltd. 22 Mouna Jute Mills Ltd. 23 Natore Jute Mills 24 Nawhata Jute Mills Limited 25 Oriental Jute Mills Ltd. 26 Poddar Agro Industries 27 Rahman Jute Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 28 Rahman Jute Spinners (Pvt.) Ltd. 29 Rajbari Jute Mills Ltd. 30 Roman Jute Mills Limited 31 Sadat Jute Industries Limited 32 Sagar Jute Spinning Mills Ltd. 33 Salim Agro Industries Limited 34 Salim Agro Industries Ltd 35
Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited 36
Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited 37 Sidlaw Textiles (Bangladesh) Ltd. 38 Sonali Aansh Industries Limited 39 Super Jute Mills Limited 40 Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd. 41 Wahab Jute Mills Ltd.
ii. Written submissions were also filed during the course of the investigation by the Government of Nepal and Government of Bangladesh. iii.
k Jute Mills (P) Ltd. 41 Wahab Jute Mills Ltd.
ii. Written submissions were also filed during the course of the investigation by the Government of Nepal and Government of Bangladesh. iii. The Authority invited views from all interested parties on the scope of product under consideration and PCN methodology. All the interested parties were requested to make their views known in writing within the time limit prescribed. Based on the comments received from the other interested parties, the Authority notified PCN methodology vide notification dated 1st September 2025. iv. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to the sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. v. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. vi.
f all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. vi. Request was made to the DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the past three years, and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority. The Authority has relied upon the data of DG 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
9 Systems for computation of the volume of imports and its analysis after due examination of the transactions, and for comparison and reconciliation with the responses filed by the exporters. vii. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority provided opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in hearing held on 5th March 2026. The parties, which presented their views in the oral hearing, were requested to file written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. viii. The Authority, during the course of the investigation, satisfied itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by the interested parties, which forms the basis of the present final findings to the extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by all the interested parties to the extent considered relevant, practicable and necessary, through desk verification. ix.
findings to the extent possible and verified the data/documents submitted by all the interested parties to the extent considered relevant, practicable and necessary, through desk verification. ix. The non-injurious price (NIP) based on the optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the subject goods in India, on the basis of the information furnished by the domestic industry and having regard to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules, has been worked out so as to ascertain whether anti-dumping duty lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. x. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority, in these Final Findings. xi. The Authority circulated the disclosure statement containing all essential facts under consideration for making the final recommendations to the Central Government to all interested parties on 17th June 2026. The Authority has examined all the post- disclosure comments made by the interested parties in these final findings to the extent relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission, and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has been repeated for the sake of brevity. xii.
extent relevant. Any submission which was merely a reproduction of the previous submission, and which had been adequately examined by the Authority has been repeated for the sake of brevity. xii. Wherever an interested party has refused access to, or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigations, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has recorded its observation on the basis of the facts available. xiii. *** in these final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. xiv. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 US$ = ₹ 85.43.
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C.1. Views of the other interested parties
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
10 8. With regard to the scope of product under consideration and like article, the interested parties have submitted as follows. i. As per the initiation notification, the scope of product under consideration includes jute yarn/twine, hessian fabric, sacking bag, and sacking cloth. However, pursuant to anti-circumvention investigation, anti-dumping duty was extended to imports of sacking cloth from Bangladesh only, and not Nepal. The product scope needs to be clarified for the same. ii.
uant to anti-circumvention investigation, anti-dumping duty was extended to imports of sacking cloth from Bangladesh only, and not Nepal. The product scope needs to be clarified for the same. ii. The PCN methodology, as notified in the sunset review, should be adopted in the present case as well. iii. PCNs should be adopted for Jute yarn/twine, Sacking Bags and Hessian Fabric. iv. Jute twine exported from Nepal has different characteristics and end usage as compared to the grades considered in the sunset review. These jute twines cannot be used to make Sacking cloth, sacking bag or Hessian cloth, but is used for sewing the mouths of jute bags. An additional PCN as “others” must be added to include jute twine from Nepal. v. PCNs must be adopted for product type, that is, CRM/CRT, Hessian, Sacking and Fabric; Yarn type; yarn count and fabric type. vi. Separate PCNs is required for Sacking Bags made from different counts of Jute yarn/twine and of different sizes. Such difference in counts and size result in variation of cost and prices. The domestic industry also sells sacking bags in different grades based on counts and size. vii. PCNs for Sacking bags must be adopted based on wrap count, weft count, bag size, bag weight and normal packing capacity. viii. Separate PCNs are required for Hessian Fabric based on differences in counts of wrap and weft, and weight.
C.2. Views of the domestic industry
g weight and normal packing capacity. viii. Separate PCNs are required for Hessian Fabric based on differences in counts of wrap and weft, and weight.
C.2. Views of the domestic industry
The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the
scope of the product under consideration and like article:
i.
Since, no significant developments have taken place over the period with regard to
product scope, the scope of product under consideration as notified in the earlier
investigation should be considered.
ii.
The Hon’ble CESTAT in M/s Anwar Jute Spinning Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of
India has held that the three different types of product – yarn, fabric and bag, were
to be considered as one product.
iii.
The production process for jute yarn, hessian fabric and sacking product is
different, with differences in raw material and cost of production. Accordingly, the
foreign producers should be asked to provide data for the three product types
separately.
iv.
While no PCNs were adopted in the original investigation, the PCNs notified in the
sunset review must be finalised in the review as well.
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
uct types
separately.
iv.
While no PCNs were adopted in the original investigation, the PCNs notified in the
sunset review must be finalised in the review as well.
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
11
v.
PCNs based on CRM/CRT, Hessian, Sacking and Fabric is incomplete as the
product basket of the domestic industry is wider and includes CB and CRX as well.
vi.
PCNs based on yarn types, fabric type, wrap count, weft count, bag size, bag weight
and packing capacity is not warranted as no evidence has been provided to show
cost and price differences.
vii. PCNs requested by other interested parties based on Yarn counts does not
appropriately cover all yarn counts.
viii. No evidence has been provided in support of the claim that jute twine from Nepal
is a different product. The said submissions must be rejected as done previously in
the sunset review.
ix.
It is evident from the scheme of the investigations itself that sacking cloth, when
imported from Nepal, does not form part of product under consideration
x.
The product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the imported
product.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
The scope of product under consideration was defined in the previous sunset review investigation as follows:
“6.
e article to the imported product.
C.3. Examination by the Authority
The scope of product under consideration was defined in the previous sunset review investigation as follows:
“6. The present investigation is a sunset review investigation concerning anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of “jute products” originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal. Hence, the PUC in the present investigation is also “jute products” originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal. The product under investigation as defined in the original investigation is as follows.
“26. The product under consideration in the present investigation is “Jute Products” comprising of Jute Yarn/twine (multiple folded/cabled and single), Hessian Fabrics and Jute Sacking bags. At the time of initiation, the classification was considered under Chapter 53 and 63 of the 1975 Act and further subclassified under custom heads 5307, 5310 and 6305. It was stated that the said customs classification is however only indicative and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation. However, it is later noted from the data filed by producers/exporters from Nepal that the exports of yarn/twine have also been made by exporters/ producers of the product from Nepal under Custom heading no. 5607, which covers Twine, Cordage, Ropes and Cables whether or not Plaited or Braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber and plastics.
Custom heading no. 5607, which covers Twine, Cordage, Ropes and Cables whether or not Plaited or Braided and whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber and plastics.
- The Authority notes that Jute is a natural and an eco-friendly fiber, which comes from the inner bark of plants. The broad usages of jute include packaging, geotextiles, protection of rooting plants, making of cloths, bags, wrapping, boot and shoe lining, fuse yarns, aprons, canal and motor linings, 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
12 ropes, strings, upholstery foundation, curtains and furnishing fabrics etc. Further, Jute can also be mixed with wool for fine yarn and fabric production.
-
Raw jute in the form of bates is processed in jute mills to produce products like jute yarn/twine, hessian fabric, sacking bags, and other products. The manufacturing process of Jute entails different stages such as selection of jute for a batch, piecing up, softening and lubricating, conditioning or piling, breaker carding, finisher carding, first drawing, second drawing, third drawing and spinning.
-
The subject goods are classified under Chapter 53 and 63 of the Customs Tariff Act and have been further sub-classified under custom heading 53101013, 63051040, 53101012 5307 1010 and 53072000.
-
The subject goods are classified under Chapter 53 and 63 of the Customs Tariff Act and have been further sub-classified under custom heading 53101013, 63051040, 53101012 5307 1010 and 53072000. The said customs classification is, however, only indicative and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation. Further, this being a sunset review investigation, the scope of the PUC remains the same as it was in the original investigation.
-
It is also noted that post the issuance of the final findings in the original investigation, the Authority conducted an anti-circumvention investigation. Through its final finding dated 19th March 2019. the Authority concluded that the duties imposed on jute sacking bag was being circumvented through exports of jute sacking cloth from Bangladesh and consequently through Customs Notification No. 24/2019-Customs (ADD) anti-dumping duty was also extended on jute sacking cloth imported from Bangladesh.”
The scope of the product under consideration is therefore confirmed as below.
“Jute Products” comprising of Jute Yarn/twine (multiple folded/cabled and single), Hessian Fabrics and Jute Sacking bags.”
It is also noted that post the original investigation, the authority vide anti circumvention final findings Notification No. 7/3/2018-DGAD, dated 19th March 2019 concluded that the sacking bag was being circumvented through export of sacking cloth from Bangladesh. Therefore, sacking cloth imported from Bangladesh have also been included, keeping in view the Customs Notification No.
g bag was being circumvented through export of sacking cloth from Bangladesh. Therefore, sacking cloth imported from Bangladesh have also been included, keeping in view the Customs Notification No. 24/2019-Customs (ADD) dated 18th June 2019. Information on sacking cloth has been considered in the present investigation wherever found appropriate by the Authority. It is noted that the duties on sacking bag gets extended to sacking cloth and the duties on sacking cloth is co-terminus with sacking bag.
The Authority invited comments on the product scope and PCN methodology. The submissions made by various parties on the scope of PCN were examined in detail. The Authority found no merit in the arguments presented by the interested parties with regard to the adoption of PCN methodology for three product types – Sacking Cloth, Sacking 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
13 Bag, and Hessian Fabric. The other interested parties have failed to show any significant differences in cost of production within such product types, based on the parameters identified. Consequently, no PCN methodology was adopted for these types of products, as has also been the consistent practice of the Authority in the previous investigations on subject goods.
As regards jute yarn / twine, the following PCN methodology was notified vide Notification dated 1st September 2025.
ctice of the Authority in the previous investigations on subject goods.
As regards jute yarn / twine, the following PCN methodology was notified vide Notification dated 1st September 2025.
Type of Yarn 1st Digit for type of yarn Weight of Yarn 2nd Digit for weight of yarn Sacking 1 Upto 14 LBS A More than 14 LBS and upto 20 LBS B More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS C More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS D More than 28 LBS E Hessian 2 Upto 8 LBS A More than 8 LBS and upto 12 LBS B More than 12 LBS and upto 16 LBS C More than 16 LBS and upto 20 LBS D More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS E More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS F CB 3 Upto 8 LBS A More than 8 LBS and upto 12 LBS B More than 12 LBS and upto 16 LBS C More than 16 LBS and upto 20 LBS D More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS E More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS F CRT/CRX 4 Upto 8 LBS A More than 8 LBS and upto 12 LBS B More than 12 LBS and upto 16 LBS C More than 16 LBS and upto 20 LBS D More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS E More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS F CRM 5 Upto 8 LBS A More than 8 LBS and upto 12 LBS B More than 12 LBS and upto 16 LBS C More than 16 LBS and upto 20 LBS D More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS E More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS F
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
and upto 12 LBS B More than 12 LBS and upto 16 LBS C More than 16 LBS and upto 20 LBS D More than 20 LBS and upto 24 LBS E More than 24 LBS and upto 28 LBS F
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
14 15. As regards the contention that a separate PCN should be made for twine from Nepal, the parties have not provided any information to show that jute twine from Nepal results in a different product type with different characteristics. Further, the argument was also examined in the sunset review, and it was concluded as below.
“167. The exporters from Nepal have stated that the PCN for the yarn exported by them has not been not appropriately framed. The Authority notes that the yarn produced by the exporters is used for the purpose of sewing the mouths of sacking bags. Further, it has been admitted by the exporters that the domestic industry also uses the produces and sells the same yarn which is used for sewing the mouth of sacking bags. Therefore, based on the information/documents furnished by the exporters/producers, the Authority has placed the jute yarn produced by the exporters from Nepal in the relevant PCN category.”
In any case, the interested parties have not shown any difference in the cost of jute twine compared to the sacking, hessian, CB, CRT/CRX, and CRM.
from Nepal in the relevant PCN category.”
In any case, the interested parties have not shown any difference in the cost of jute twine compared to the sacking, hessian, CB, CRT/CRX, and CRM. In absence of any evidence of differences in costs and prices, the Authority does not find merit in the contention that the twine should be considered separately.
The subject goods are classified under Chapter 53 and 63 of the Customs Tariff Act and have been further sub-classified under Customs heading 53101013, 63051040, 53101012 5307 1010 and 53072000. The said Customs classification is, however, only indicative and is in no way binding on the scope of the present investigation
The Authority notes that there are no significant differences in the product produced by the applicant domestic producers and the product imported from the subject countries. The product produced by the applicant domestic producers and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of physical & chemical properties, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The product produced by the applicant domestic producers and that imported from the subject countries are being used interchangeably by the consumers. In view of the same, the product manufactured by the applicant domestic producers is considered as like article to the product being imported from the subject countries.
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1. Views of the other interested parties
omestic producers is considered as like article to the product being imported from the subject countries.
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D.1. Views of the other interested parties
The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to domestic industry and standing. i. The supporters have not provided information in compliance to Trade Notice 13/2018. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
15 ii. It should be verified that the applicant domestic producers account for at least 25% of the total domestic production of like article.
D.2. Views of the domestic industry
The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to domestic
industry and standing.
i.
The application was filed by IJMA and AP Mesta Twine Mills Association with the
8 applicant domestic producers.
ii.
Application was supported by 11 producers of the product prior to initiation.
iii.
The applicant domestic producers have not imported the product under
consideration and are not related to exporters/importers of the product from the
subject countries.
iv.
Even though the requirement of standing does not apply in review, the application
satisfies the requirements of Rule 5(3).
D.3. Examination by the Authority
the
subject countries.
iv.
Even though the requirement of standing does not apply in review, the application
satisfies the requirements of Rule 5(3).
D.3. Examination by the Authority
Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines the domestic industry as under:
“(b) "domestic industry " means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry ' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers”
The application has been filed by Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA). The following members of the applicant associations have participated as domestic producers and have filed the requisite information: i. Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited ii. Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd iii. Cheviot Company Limited iv. Gloster Limited v. Hoogly Infrastructure Private Limited vi. Ludlow Jute & Specialities Limited vii. The Naihati Jute Mills Co. Limited viii. Neelam Jute Co. Limited
Post filing of the application, the Authority received support letters from the following
domestic producers:
i.
Ambica Jute Mills
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
. Neelam Jute Co. Limited
Post filing of the application, the Authority received support letters from the following
domestic producers:
i.
Ambica Jute Mills
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
16 ii. Anglo India Jute & Textile Industries Private Limited iii. Bally Jute Company Limited iv. Birla Corporation Limited v. Budge Budge Co. Limited vi. Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. Limited vii. Jagatdal Jute & Industries Limited viii. Kamarhatty Co. Limited ix. Mahadeo Jute & Industries Limited x. The Hooghly Mills Company Limited xi. Vijai Shree Private Limited
The other interested parties have contended that the support letters filed by the supporters may be disregarded on account of non-filing of the relevant information in terms of Trade Notices 13/2018. However, having regard to trade notice 4/2021 dated 16 June 2021and consistent practice of the Authority, the Authority has considered the support offered by the other domestic producers. The production of the applicant domestic producers and the supporters is summarized below.
actice of the Authority, the Authority has considered the support offered by the other domestic producers. The production of the applicant domestic producers and the supporters is summarized below.
SN Particulars Unit Volume (MT) Share in Production
Applicant domestic producers
1 Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited MT
2 Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd MT
3 Cheviot Company Limited MT
4 Gloster Limited MT
5 Hoogly Infrastructure Private Limited MT
6 Ludlow Jute & Specialities Limited MT
7 The Naihati Jute Mills Co. Limited MT
8 Neelam Jute Co. Limited MT
A
Production of applicant producers
MT
2,74,917
28%
B
Production of supporters
1,72,860
17%
C
Production of other domestic producers
MT
5,40,233
55%
D
Total Indian production
MT
9,88,010
Source: Statement of Indian production submitted by domestic industry in its injury annexures. Production of supporters as per support letters filed
It is noted that the production of applicant domestic producers constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production. Further, as per the information on record, applicant domestic producers have not imported the product under consideration from the subject countries during the period of investigation. The applicant domestic producers are also not related to any importer or exporter of the product under consideration. In 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
countries during the period of investigation. The applicant domestic producers are also not related to any importer or exporter of the product under consideration. In 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
17 view of the same, the Authority concludes that the applicant domestic producers constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E.1. Views of the other interested parties
The interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to
confidentiality:
i.
The comments made by applicants were time-barred, since they have been filed
subsequent to the 7 day deadline prescribed in the initiation notification.
ii.
The interested parties have complied with the requirements under Rule 7 of Anti-
Dumping Rules, and Trade Notice No. 10/2018. The claim that excessive
confidentiality has been claimed is without any basis.
iii.
The domestic industry has not disclosed information regarding production process,
raw materials, names and addresses of other Indian producers and other
information as required to be disclosed under Trade Notice 10/2018.
iv.
The applicants have not provided its list of members and members which have
supported or opposed or remained neutral to the application. The applicant
associations have claimed the minutes of meeting as confidential.
E.2. Views of the domestic industry
hich have supported or opposed or remained neutral to the application. The applicant associations have claimed the minutes of meeting as confidential.
E.2. Views of the domestic industry
The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to confidentiality:
i.
The applicants had duly sought an extension of time from the Authority for filing
comments on confidentiality regarding the responses received. The applicants have
filed their submissions within the extended timeline. It may be noted that the
applicants have filed submissions with regard to the accuracy and adequacy of
responses, and not just confidentiality.
ii.
The applicants have provided sufficient non-confidential summaries of the
information provided on a confidential basis except for those which are not
susceptible to summarization, unlike the responding interested parties who have
resorted to excessive confidential information.
iii.
The interested parties have claimed the nature of adjustments to normal value and
export price as confidential, which is excessive.
iv.
The exporters/producers have resorted to undue confidentiality by claiming
confidentiality on some of the key information relating to goods produced, related
parties, shareholders, financial statements, list of documents provided,
manufacturing process, exchange rate, costing methodology applied, adjustments
with regard to by-product, raw materials, etc.
v.
The responding producers have not disclosed the types of subject goods produced
by them.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
applied, adjustments with regard to by-product, raw materials, etc. v. The responding producers have not disclosed the types of subject goods produced by them.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
18 E.3. Examination by the Authority
The submissions made by the other interested parties and the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality have been examined as under:
The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the information provided by the various parties to other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. With regard to confidentiality of information submitted by the interested parties, Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub- rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub- rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any Other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such Information shall be disclosed to any other perry without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such Information shall be disclosed to any other perry without specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the Information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
The information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regards to sufficiency of such claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient nonconfidential version of the information filed on a confidential basis.
The Authority notes that the domestic industry and the other interested parties have shown good cause for the confidentiality claimed.
sion of the information filed on a confidential basis.
The Authority notes that the domestic industry and the other interested parties have shown good cause for the confidentiality claimed. The information for which disclosure has been sought by the parties is business proprietary information, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the business interests of the parties.
F.
SCOPE AND GROUNDS OF THE PRESENT REVIEW
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
19
F.1.
Views of the other interested parties
The other interested parties have made the following submissions with respect to the scope of review: i. The scope of mid-term review cannot be limited to only re-determination of duties. As per the provisions of Rule 23(1A), the Authority may vary the duty only if injury is likely to occur, which implies that a comprehensive mid-term review is required. ii. Under Rule 23(1A), while withdrawal of anti-dumping duty is mentioned, enhancement of duty is not mentioned specifically. Therefore, while in general, the mid-term review shall examine whether the duty may be withdrawn, duty may be enhanced only in case of exceptions, that is, if the injury to the domestic industry gets aggravated compared to the original investigation. iii. Based on the observations of Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority and High Court in Nirma Limited v.
c industry gets aggravated compared to the original investigation. iii. Based on the observations of Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority and High Court in Nirma Limited v. Union of India, a mid-term review requires re-determination of injury margin. However, the injury margin may be re- determined only if the Authority comes to a conclusion that the domestic industry has suffered injury. iv. Rule 23(1A) and Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement do not provide for re-quantification of injury margin, without undertaking comprehensive injury examination. v. The reliance on the case of Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels is misplaced, since in that case, the domestic industry had only sought re-quantification of duty for certain select producers / exporters. vi. The Manual of Operating Practices also notes that the review inquiry should be limited to seeing whether the conditions which existed at the time of original imposition of duty have altered to such an extent that there is no longer any justification for continued imposition of duty. vii. The scope of present review must remain confined to the original objective of re- examining the dumping margin and injury margin, and no changes should be made to the product categories, or duty structure. The request of the domestic industry to impose the same quantum of duty on all product types cannot be accepted. viii. Since the scope of product under consideration includes different products, which cannot be interchanged, a single rate of duty cannot be imposed for all products.
t types cannot be accepted. viii. Since the scope of product under consideration includes different products, which cannot be interchanged, a single rate of duty cannot be imposed for all products. Even in other investigations, such as alloy steel chisel/ tool and hydraulic rock breaker in fully assembled condition and rubber chemicals, the Authority has notified different duties for different products. ix. Since the applicants have not discharged its obligation to provide positive information, substantiating the need for review, the review should be terminated, particularly against Nepal. x. As held by CEGAT in the case of Kalyani Steel Ltd. v. Designated Authority, the party requesting for initiation of mid-term review, is required to submit positive information substantiating the need for review. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
20
xi.
The domestic industry has not shown a change in circumstances of lasting nature.
The increase in prices during the period of investigation shows that decline in prices
is not of lasting nature.
xii. The price of Hessian cloth claimed by the applicants appears to be irregular, since
Hessian cloth is a high value product. The price is significantly different than the
prices as per the data of exporters.
xiii. Even as per the information provided by the applicants themselves, the decline in
prices is overstated.
xiv.
price is significantly different than the
prices as per the data of exporters.
xiii. Even as per the information provided by the applicants themselves, the decline in
prices is overstated.
xiv. The pattern of fluctuations in the import prices shows that prices have increased in
one period, and declined in the next, which indicates normal market variability.
There is no evidence of a persistent downward trend in prices.
xv.
The decline in export price may be due to a number of factors such as changes in
global demand, exchange rate fluctuations, freight costs, or competitive market
dynamics, and is not necessarily indicative of dumping.
xvi. Amongst the sampled producers from Bangladesh, while the raw jute prices
declined by 1%, the price of subject goods has increased by 18% compared to the
previous year.
xvii. In support of the claim that raw jute prices have not declined, the applicants have
relied upon raw jute prices in India, and not in Nepal. The prices of raw jute in
Nepal have shown a decline, as evident from Trade Map data for exports of raw
jute from Nepal to India.
xviii. Raw material cost is only one component of cost and prices may decline due to
productivity, economies of scale, contractual obligations, and market competition.
xix. Comparison of prices of subject goods with prices of raw jute would demonstrate
that the prices are not influenced only by raw jute prices.
xx.
The domestic industry has admitted in its own application that the prices of sacking
bags and sacking cloth have not declined.
rate that the prices are not influenced only by raw jute prices. xx. The domestic industry has admitted in its own application that the prices of sacking bags and sacking cloth have not declined. In view of the same, sacking bags and sacking cloth should be excluded from the scope of review. xxi. The arguments with regard to exports being made beyond installed capacities have been made only in respect of producers in Bangladesh. No evidence in this regard has been provided for Nepal. xxii. The responses filed by the responding producers in the investigation would reveal that the exports of product under consideration are less than the installed capacity, contrary to the claims of the domestic industry. In fact, the installed capacity is almost 50% more than the production capacity of the foreign producers.
F.2.
Views of the domestic industry
The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the scope of review: i. The provisions of Rule 23(1A) make it clear that the anti-dumping duty shall be to the extent necessary to counter dumping causing injury. Since the duties are no 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
i. The provisions of Rule 23(1A) make it clear that the anti-dumping duty shall be to the extent necessary to counter dumping causing injury. Since the duties are no 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
21 longer effective in countering the dumping, there is a need for re-quantification of duties. ii. The application proforma also identifies various factors relevant for initiation of a mid-term review, and is not limited to the parameters identified by the interested parties. iii. The request for a comprehensive review has been made by interested parties for the first time in their rebuttal submissions in the hearing. No such request was made in response to the initiation. iv. The scope of review should be limited, as in the mid-term review concerning imports of Aluminium Alloy Road Wheels. However, should the Authority find it appropriate to conduct a comprehensive review, the relevant information has already been placed on record. v. Contrary to arguments of interested parties, a fresh and independent determination of injury is not necessary in a mid-term review. The Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority has held that the findings recorded regarding existence of injury at the time of original imposition of duty must be considered to continue to remain valid, unless it is proved to be otherwise. vi.
as held that the findings recorded regarding existence of injury at the time of original imposition of duty must be considered to continue to remain valid, unless it is proved to be otherwise. vi. The interested parties have relied upon a selective interpretation of Rule 23(1A), which provides for the duty to be “removed” or “varied”. Thus, the Rules necessarily encompass modification of duty in any direction. vii. The Rules mandate the Authority to assess whether the duty continues to be warranted, which includes examination of whether the current level of duty is adequate to address dumping and injury. viii. If the interpretation of the interested parties is accepted, it would imply that the Authority would be precluded from enhancing duty in the face of intensified dumping or injury. ix. The reliance on the decision in case of M/s Nirma Limited by opposing parties is misplaced, as a review is not intended to be a de novo investigation into injury. x. Contrary to arguments of the interested parties, there is a difference in modification of product scope and modification of duty structure. The duty structure can be modified in a mid-term review, and the same does not change the product scope. xi. There has been a decline in the import prices for all products, barring sacking bag and sacking cloth from Bangladesh. xii.
a mid-term review, and the same does not change the product scope.
xi.
There has been a decline in the import prices for all products, barring sacking bag
and sacking cloth from Bangladesh.
xii. The decline in import price is not commensurate with a decline in the prices of raw
jute, as evident from the prices of jute published on the website of the Jute
Commissioner, prices published by Jute Bailers Association and the data of the
domestic industry.
xiii. Since the current duties are not aligned with the prevailing export prices, there is a
need for enhancement of duties.
xiv. With the decline in prices, the import volumes have increased across all product
categories, despite no material change in the demand. The increase in imports is
especially pronounced in case of Hessian fabric.
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
22 xv. The same trends shall be witnessed if comparison is made with period of investigation of the previously conducted sunset review. xvi. The pattern of trade by responding producers reveal sustained decline in export prices, and shifting trade behaviour in the context of applicable duties. xvii. The decline in prices, coupled with the increase in imports and price suppression, imply that the changes are structural in nature, and are not temporary fluctuations. xviii. The interested parties have relied upon misleading data in their analysis of price change.
suppression,
imply that the changes are structural in nature, and are not temporary fluctuations.
xviii. The interested parties have relied upon misleading data in their analysis of price
change. The appropriate analysis shall be between the prices in the period of
investigation of the previous sunset review, and the present period of investigation.
xix. The reliance by interested parties on the price trends of a subset of exporters is self-
serving and does not reflect industry-wide trends.
xx.
Considering the particular market situation in Bangladesh, the limited correlation
drawn by the interested parties cannot be considered as reflecting true market
dynamics.
xxi. The attempt to distinguish prices of jute in Nepal and India is not appropriate, as
producers in Nepal import jute from India and Bangladesh.
xxii. Certain producers in Bangladesh have exported product volumes far exceeding
their capacities.
xxiii. Considering the admission by interested parties that the installed capacities are
50% higher than the production, the increase in exports to India cannot be
explained based on normal production patterns and indicates export orientation
driven by pricing behaviour.
xxiv. Sacking bags and sacking cloth cannot be excluded from the scope of investigation,
as the product under consideration has been consistently defined as a single
product.
F.3.
Examination by the Authority
sacking cloth cannot be excluded from the scope of investigation, as the product under consideration has been consistently defined as a single product.
F.3.
Examination by the Authority
The present review was initiated as per Rule 23(1A), which, inter-alia, provides as follows:
“(1A) The designated authority shall review the need for the continued imposition of any anti-dumping duty, where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits positive information substantiating the need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty and upon such review, the designated authority shall recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal, where it comes to a conclusion that the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if the said anti-dumping duty is removed or varied and is therefore no longer warranted.”
The Authority issued an Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019 providing for review, which, inter-alia, provides as follows: 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
s therefore no longer warranted.”
The Authority issued an Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019 providing for review, which, inter-alia, provides as follows: 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
23
“6. Any interested party, including domestic industry, can seek a review under rule 23 and 24 of AD and CVD Rules respectively to alter the quantum or form of existing AD/ CVD duty. The changed circumstances which may warrant a review may include changes in raw material prices, costs, duty structure, exchange rate etc. The Authority would consider a fresh POI for such a review and evaluate all key parameters viz dumping margin or subsidy margin, injury margin and landed value for this chosen POI. The modified AD/ CVD, including the form, would be based on this comprehensive re-computation.”
The domestic industry has submitted that the current duties are no longer aligned with prevailing export prices and are inadequate to address the injurious effects of dumped imports, and that continuation of the existing duty structure is defeating the remedial intent of the measure. Some of the interested parties have contended that a review under Rule 23 may be undertaken only to examine the need for continued imposition of duty, and not for re-quantification of duty. It is further noted that it has been the consistent practice of the Authority to vary the duty rates during mid-term review.
for continued imposition of duty, and not for re-quantification of duty. It is further noted that it has been the consistent practice of the Authority to vary the duty rates during mid-term review. The Authority notes that it has conducted reviews for re-quantification of duty under Rule 23 in the past as well. One of such reviews, concerning imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) was challenged before the Supreme Court, and was found consistent with the provisions of Rule 23 by the Apex Court. Therefore, the present review cannot be considered to be beyond the provisions of Rule 23. Further, Rule 23(1) mentions that “any anti-dumping duty imposed under the provision of section 9A of the Act, shall remain in force, so long as and to the extent necessary, to counteract dumping, which is causing injury.” The meaning of the word “to the extent” means the extent or degree of duty. Thus, this rule allows the Authority to vary the degree (quantum) of duty.
Further, the Designated Authority has vide Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019, issued a guideline stating that any interested party, including the domestic industry, could seek initiation of a review under Rule 23 to alter the quantum or form of duty. Therefore, the applicants are justified in proceeding for an application under the provisions of Rule 23.
Some of the interested parties have claimed that the Authority should examine injury to the domestic industry. The Authority notes that the scope of the mid-term review is different from original investigations and sunset reviews.
ve claimed that the Authority should examine injury to the domestic industry. The Authority notes that the scope of the mid-term review is different from original investigations and sunset reviews. In a mid-term review, the Authority is required to investigate and determine the need for the continued imposition of an anti-dumping duty in force, where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party which submits positive information substantiating the need for such a review, after elapse of reasonable period of time since the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty. Further, the Designated Authority is required to determine whether injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if the anti- dumping duty in force is removed or varied. If the Authority comes to a conclusion that 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
24 the anti-dumping in force is no longer warranted, the Authority shall recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal.
The Authority has previously noted as follows with regard to the scope of a mid-term review in 4,4 Diamino Stilbene 2, 2 Disulphonic Acid (DASDA), originating in or exported from China PR.
“The language of the rules concerning sunset review and midterm review has been deliberately kept different so as to emphasize more on the cautiousness of establishing the need for withdrawal.
.
“The language of the rules concerning sunset review and midterm review has been deliberately kept different so as to emphasize more on the cautiousness of establishing the need for withdrawal. The emphasis on word ''not” likely in Rule 23 (IA) of AD Rules, signifies a higher and stringent obligation while examining premature withdrawal of-antidumping duty.”
The same is also consistent with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority [2006 (196) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.)], wherein it was noted as follows.
“35. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that scope of the review inquiry by the Designated Authority is limited to the satisfaction as to whether there is justification for continued imposition of such duty on the information received by it. By its very nature, the review inquiry would be limited to see as to whether the conditions which existed at the time of imposition of anti-dumping duty have altered to such an extent that there is no longer justification for continued imposition of the duty. The inquiry is limited to the change in the various parameters like the normal value, export price, dumping margin, fixation of non-injury price and injury to domestic industry. The said inquiry has to be limited to the information received with respect to change in the various parameters.
price, dumping margin, fixation of non-injury price and injury to domestic industry. The said inquiry has to be limited to the information received with respect to change in the various parameters. The entire purpose of the review inquiry is not to see whether there is a need for imposition of anti-dumping duty but to see whether in the absence of such continuance, dumping would increase and the domestic industry suffer.
- It is of vital importance to note that in the initial imposition of duty, the appellant has accepted the position that determination of injury by the Designated Authority was proper and in conformity with the requirements of Annexure-II of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The appellant did not challenge the final finding of the Designated Authority before the Tribunal that parameters mentioned in para (iv) of Annexure-II had not been considered or satisfied. We have declined the permission to the appellant to raise this point before us in Civil Appeal Nos. 773 and 774 of 2001 which were directed against the final findings recorded by the Designated Authority based on which the Government of India had imposed the anti-dumping duty for a period of five years. Under Section 9A(1), the said initial imposition of anti-dumping duty is ordinarily contemplated to be continued and remain in effect for a full period of five years, at the end of which it would be subject 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
mposition of anti-dumping duty is ordinarily contemplated to be continued and remain in effect for a full period of five years, at the end of which it would be subject 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
25 to sunset review, the possible consequence of which would be the extension of the operation of the period of anti-dumping duty for another period of five years. This is subject to the provisions of subrule (1) of Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, under which the Designated Authority is empowered to review the anti-dumping duty imposed from time to time. Having regard to the scheme of the above mentioned provisions of the statute, once anti-dumping duty has been initially imposed, it would be ordinarily continued for five years unless on a review it is found by the Designated Authority that there has been such a significant change in the facts and circumstances, that it is considered necessary either to withdraw or modify appropriately the anti-dumping duty which has been imposed.
hat there has been such a significant change in the facts and circumstances, that it is considered necessary either to withdraw or modify appropriately the anti-dumping duty which has been imposed. It is, therefore, clear that unless the Designated Authority suo motu or the applicant for review is in a position to establish clearly that there has been a significant change in the facts and circumstances relating to each of the basic requirements or conditions precedent for imposing duty, the finding given by the Designated Authority at the time of initial imposition of anti-dumping duty must be considered to continue to hold the field.
- The final findings recorded by the Designated Authority at the time of initial imposition of anti-dumping duty on the existence of injury to the domestic industry must be considered to continue to remain valid, unless it is proved to be otherwise, either by the Designated Authority in suo motu review or by the applicant seeking review. In the present case, the review had been initiated by the Designated Authority. Neither the Designated Authority nor the appellant had placed any material on record which could possibly displace the findings given by the Designated Authority at the stage of initial anti-dumping duty. In the absence of any new material, the Designated Authority is not required to apply afresh all parameters or criteria enumerated in para (iv) of Annexure-II, which had already been done at the initial stage of imposition of anti-dumping duty.
ted Authority is not required to apply afresh all parameters or criteria enumerated in para (iv) of Annexure-II, which had already been done at the initial stage of imposition of anti-dumping duty. There is no material on record to show that there was a change in the parameters or the criteria relating to the injury which would warrant withdrawal of anti-dumping duty. Nevertheless, the Designated Authority has still analysed the issue of injury in detail in the Mid Term Review findings and has considered all the criteria or parameters enumerated in Annexure-II. There is, therefore, no merit or substance in the appellant’s contention regarding non-compliance with Annexure-II.”
Therefore, the Authority notes that the Authority is not required to conclude existence of injury, in order to arrive at a conclusion that continued imposition of anti-dumping duty is necessary. Based on the provisions of Rule 23(1A) and the decision of the Supreme Court cited above, the Authority is required to examine, if based on factors brought on record in the review, the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if duty is withdrawn. The Authority has examined the same in the present investigation.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
iew, the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if duty is withdrawn. The Authority has examined the same in the present investigation.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
26 42. Concerning the need for enhancement of duty, the domestic industry has submitted as under. a. There has been decline in the export price of subject goods. b. Decline in export prices not in consonance with the decline of prices of raw jute which constitutes the major cost of subject goods. c. Exports are being made by producers beyond their installed capacity indicating routing of goods produced by other producers.
The Authority shall, therefore, examine whether there has been a change in the export prices, of a lasting nature, such that it affects the determination of normal value, export price, dumping margin and injury margin. The Authority shall, thereafter, examine the need for modification in the current quantum of duty. Further, the Authority shall also examine if the evidence indicates that the foreign producers have exported volumes in excess of their capacities.
F.3.1 Decline in the export price of subject goods
The Authority has examined the transaction-wise import data for the period of investigation. It is noted that export prices of the subject goods from the subject countries have shown a material decline over the injury period.
he transaction-wise import data for the period of investigation. It is noted that export prices of the subject goods from the subject countries have shown a material decline over the injury period. The increase in period of investigation has not offset the decline faced in the previous periods.
Comparison of prices over the injury period
Product
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Bangladesh
Hessian
₹/MT
1,24,991
1,16,134
89,927
1,04,334
Yarn
₹/MT
99,614
86,923
73,415
77,643
Sacking bags / cloth
₹/MT
1,01,156
88,584
79,093
82,753
Nepal
Hessian ₹/MT 1,24,558 1,18,552 1,07,957 1,04,983 Yarn ₹/MT 87,947 75,495 59,814 66,341 Sacking bags ₹/MT 1,05,543 91,434 82,462 84,802 Source: Prices of product under consideration as per DG Systems data.
From the foregoing, it is noted that there has been a sharp decline in the prices of the subject goods over the injury period. While the Authority agrees with the contention of the other parties that the prices have increased during the period of investigation as compared to the previous year, the prices continue to be much lower if compared with the base year.
However, it is noted that since the present case relates to change in circumstances, the change must be seen from the last investigation, that is, the period of investigation of the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
noted that since the present case relates to change in circumstances, the change must be seen from the last investigation, that is, the period of investigation of the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
27 sunset review. Accordingly, the Authority has compared the price of the product during the present period of investigation with the period of investigation of the previous sunset review, that is, 2020-21. It is noted that barring sacking, the prices of all products have declined during this period.
Comparison with prices in period of investigation of sunset review
Product
Unit
2020-21
(SSR POI)
2024-25
(MTR POI)
Change
Bangladesh
Hessian ₹/MT 1,12,435 1,04,334 -7% Yarn ₹/MT 88,506 77,643 -12% Sacking bags / cloth ₹/MT 78,237 82,753 6% Nepal
Hessian ₹/MT 1,21,225 1,04,983 -13% Yarn ₹/MT 75,005 66,341 -12% Sacking bags ₹/MT 85,956 84,802 -1% Source: Prices of product under consideration as per DG Systems data for present period of investigation, and prices in 2020-21 as per final findings of sunset review.
The interested parties have claimed that the decline in prices is isolated, aberrational and temporary. However, the Authority does not find any merit in the same. While it is observed that the prices have registered a slight increase compared to the previous year, there has undoubtedly been a sustained decline in prices over the period.
ny merit in the same. While it is observed that the prices have registered a slight increase compared to the previous year, there has undoubtedly been a sustained decline in prices over the period.
It is further noted that the decline in prices has resulted in an increase in import volumes over the period. It is seen that the imports declined in 2021-22, compared to 2020-21, but have increased significantly thereafter.
Comparison of volumes over the injury period
Product
Unit
2020-21
(SSR POI)
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Bangladesh
Hessian
MT
921
208
632
1,982
1,370
Yarn
MT
61,364
32,271
50,177
60,853
56,323
Sacking bags / cloth
MT
49,627
37,214
43,842
80,980
59,829
Imports from Bangladesh
MT
1,11,912
69,693
94,652
1,43,815
1,17,523
Nepal
Hessian MT 32,304 28,670 26,694 26,172 33,381 Yarn MT 6,937 3,449 3,255 3,417 2,723 Sacking bags MT 27,606 10,922 14,918 16,868 12,788 Imports from Nepal MT 66,847 43,041 44,868 46,456 48,893 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
1 Yarn MT 6,937 3,449 3,255 3,417 2,723 Sacking bags MT 27,606 10,922 14,918 16,868 12,788 Imports from Nepal MT 66,847 43,041 44,868 46,456 48,893 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
28
Total imports from
subject countries
MT
1,78,759
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
Source: Volume as per DG Systems data for present injury period, and as per final findings of sunset review for period of investigation of sunset review.
Certain interested parties have claimed that the decline in export price may be due to factors such as changes in global demand, exchange rate fluctuations, freight costs, or competitive market dynamics, and is not necessarily indicative of dumping. However, the interested parties have failed to provide any information or evidence(s) regarding which of these factors affects export price, and to what extent. Any change in freight costs would not impact the re-determination of dumping margin, as the same shall be based on ex-factory prices. As regards global demand, the same is not relevant to the determination of trend of prices in India. If the prices have declined due to competition between different producers, the same may nevertheless constitute dumping. Therefore, the Authority does not find any merit in the argument that the decline in prices does not indicate intensified dumping in India.
ers, the same may nevertheless constitute dumping. Therefore, the Authority does not find any merit in the argument that the decline in prices does not indicate intensified dumping in India.
The Authority, therefore, considers that the decline in export prices is not temporary. Further, such decline in prices has resulted in an increase in imports into India, despite the duties in force. In view of the above, the Authority holds that there has been a material decline in export prices of the subject goods from the subject countries, and that such decline in prices has been of a lasting nature.
F.3.2 Decline in export prices not in consonance with movement in raw jute prices
The domestic industry has claimed that the decline in export price is not in line with the prices of raw jute. Raw jute constitutes the principal raw material for manufacture of the subject goods. Raw jute in the form of bales is processed in jute mills to produce jute yarn/twine, hessian fabric, sacking bags and other products, and the manufacturing process involves multiple stages including carding, drawing and spinning. The domestic industry has provided information as per website of Jute Commissioner and the Jute Bailers Association. The other interested parties have disputed the reliance on such information on the basis that the comparison of export price should be made with the price of raw jute in the subject countries. The Authority agrees with the submissions of the other interested parties.
ation on the basis that the comparison of export price should be made with the price of raw jute in the subject countries. The Authority agrees with the submissions of the other interested parties. The Authority notes that if the decline in export price is in line with the prices of raw jute in the subject countries, such decline shall be considered as justified in line with cost decline. However, if the prices of subject goods have declined in excess of prices of raw jute in the country of export, the decline in price of subject goods would be considered excessive and inconsistent with changes in raw material prices.
For this purpose, the Authority has considered the price of imports of raw jute from Bangladesh into India, since India accounts for the largest share of exports of raw jute 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
29 from Bangladesh. Further, India is the largest exporter of raw jute to Nepal. In view of the same, the price of exports of raw jute from India to Nepal have been considered. The DGCI&S published data shows as under.
urther, India is the largest exporter of raw jute to Nepal. In view of the same, the price of exports of raw jute from India to Nepal have been considered. The DGCI&S published data shows as under.
Comparison with prices over the injury period
Product
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Change
over
period
Bangladesh
Hessian ₹/MT 1,24,991 1,16,134 89,927 1,04,334 -17% Yarn ₹/MT 99,614 86,923 73,415 77,643 -22% Sacking bags / cloth ₹/MT 1,01,156 88,584 79,093 82,753 -18% Price of Raw jute – Export to India ₹/MT
71,885
68,381
55,268
59,953
-17%
Nepal
Hessian ₹/MT 1,24,558 1,18,552 1,07,957 1,04,983 -16% Yarn ₹/MT 87,947 75,495 59,814 66,341 -25% Sacking bags ₹/MT 1,05,543 91,434 82,462 84,802 -20% Price of Raw jute – Import from India ₹/MT
69,351
59,465
51,199
59,242
-15%
Source: Prices of product under consideration as per DG Systems data.
Prices of raw jute taken as per DGCI&S published data concerning imports of raw jute
from Bangladesh into India, and exports of raw jute from India to Nepal
The Authority notes that the prices of raw jute have also declined over the period. The price of Hessian from Bangladesh and Nepal, and the price of Sacking from Bangladesh have declined in tandem. However, the decline in price of yarn from both the subject countries, and sacking from Nepal is comparatively higher.
pal, and the price of Sacking from Bangladesh have declined in tandem. However, the decline in price of yarn from both the subject countries, and sacking from Nepal is comparatively higher.
The Authority also notes that the present review requires examination of change in circumstances compared to the investigation period, in which the margins were previously quantified and duties were continued. Accordingly, the Authority has also compared the change in prices of raw jute and the prices of subject goods in the period of investigation compared to period of investigation of the sunset review.
Comparison with prices in period of investigation of sunset review
Product
Unit
2020-21
(SSR POI)
2024-25
(MTR POI)
Change
Bangladesh
Hessian ₹/MT 1,12,435 1,04,334 -7% Yarn ₹/MT 88,506 77,643 -12% Sacking bags / cloth ₹/MT 78,237 82,753 6% 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
30 Price of Raw jute – Export to India ₹/MT
62,429
59,953
-4%
Nepal
Hessian ₹/MT 1,21,225 1,04,983 -13% Yarn ₹/MT 75,005 66,341 -12% Sacking bags ₹/MT 85,956 84,802 -1% Price of Raw jute – Import from India ₹/MT
62,516
59,242
-5%
Source: Prices of product under consideration as per DG Systems data for present period of investigation, and prices in 2020-21 as per final findings of sunset review.
62,516
59,242
-5%
Source: Prices of product under consideration as per DG Systems data for present
period of investigation, and prices in 2020-21 as per final findings of sunset review.
Prices of raw jute taken as per DGCI&S published data concerning imports of raw jute
from Bangladesh into India, and exports of raw jute from India to Nepal
It is noted that barring sacking, the prices of subject goods from subject countries have declined at a far higher rate than the change in price of raw material. The Authority considers that such disproportionate movement between input prices and import price is significant. In a normal commercial scenario, movement in the price of a principal input would be expected to have some proportionate relationship with the price movement of the finished goods. However, where prices of the finished product decline materially more than the change in the price of principal raw material, the same indicates that pricing is not driven solely by changes in input cost. Thus, the Authority concludes that there has been a change in circumstances, as compared to the sunset review, when the duties were previously quantified.
Certain interested parties have claimed that the export price may decline due to productivity, economies of scale, contractual obligations, and market competition, and may not be linked to raw material cost.
terested parties have claimed that the export price may decline due to productivity, economies of scale, contractual obligations, and market competition, and may not be linked to raw material cost. As regards economies of scale and productivity reducing cost, the Authority notes that no information has been provided to show that the major producers exporting to India have all undergone such changes, to warrant a decline in average prices into India. In any case, any decline in cost due to improvement in productivity or economies of scale are already considered in the determination of normal value, which is based on the cost of production of the foreign producers. As regards decline in prices due to contractual obligations and market competition, the interested parties have failed to show why such decline in prices shall nevertheless not constitute dumping.
The interested parties have claimed that the trends of raw material and prices of subject goods should be based on their responses. However, the Authority notes that the reliance on average prices and costs in the subject countries would be more objective in this regard. Further, in any case, all foreign producers have not provided prices of subject goods for the period of investigation of the previous sunset review. Further, the foreign producers have not provided the subject goods in the raw jute prices over the injury period and the period of investigation of the previous sunset review. Therefore, the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
oducers have not provided the subject goods in the raw jute prices over the injury period and the period of investigation of the previous sunset review. Therefore, the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
31 Authority has relied on official import and export data, to arrive at its conclusions in this regard.
F.3.3 Exports beyond their installed capacity indicating routing of goods
The domestic industry has also contended that exports are being made from the subject countries in volumes exceeding the installed capacity of the producers. The domestic industry has stated that, based on market intelligence, certain Bangladeshi producers are exporting products beyond their installed capacities and that producers attracting higher duty are routing their goods through producers who attract lower duty. The domestic industry has specifically referred to exporters such as Sidlaw Textiles and Nawhata Jute Mills, whose installed capacities and export volumes to India, according to the domestic industry, indicate exports beyond capacity. The Authority has compared the data submitted by the domestic industry with regard to capacities installed, the capacities claimed by the responding exporters and the volume of exports by such exporters. It is noted as below.
S. No.
mitted by the domestic industry with regard to capacities installed, the capacities claimed by the responding exporters and the volume of exports by such exporters. It is noted as below.
S. No. Producer Capacity as per domestic industry (MT) Capacity as per response (MT) Exports to India – as per Response (MT) Total sales by exporter – as per Response (MT) 1
Wave Jute Textile Mills
Limited
7,339
NA
NA
NA
2
Sagar Jute Spinning Mills Ltd. 36,500- 50,000
3
Ahad Jute Spinners Limited
5,550
NA
NA
NA
4
Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd.
35,000 pcs
5 Mymensingh Jute Mills Ltd. 9,000 NA NA NA 6 Hasan Jute Mills Ltd 38,325
7 Sidlaw Textiles BD Ltd 22,000
8 Janata Jute Mills Ltd 1,40,000
Source: Capacity and exports by cooperating foreign producers as per their responses. Capacity as per domestic industry, provided in application filed by domestic industry.
The Authority, therefore, notes that based on the information collected during the course of the investigation, the exports by individual producers does not exceed the capacities of the producers. In view of the same, the Authority concludes that there is insufficient evidence of routing of goods produced by other producers, to record a finding on this basis.
G. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
ity concludes that there is insufficient evidence of routing of goods produced by other producers, to record a finding on this basis.
G. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
32
G.1. Views of the other interested parties
The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties.
i.
The application did not contain the information with regard to injury, which makes
it deficient for the purpose of initiation of review.
ii.
Since the domestic industry did not submit injury information in the application, it
should not be permitted to submit the same later.
iii.
The domestic industry has provided information with regard to different export
price of Hessian cloth from Nepal at different places, which is highly misleading.
iv.
The applicants claim to have obtained data from DGIC&S, which is unusual, since
DGCI&S does not give data to private parties.
v.
The final determination may be made having regard to the age-old bilateral
relationships, responses filed by foreign producers from Nepal, the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, and the Indian Rules.
vi.
The claims of the domestic industry with regard to production capacities in
Bangladesh, the export-oriented nature of operations of foreign producers, and
availability of alternative markets, cannot take precedence over an injury
examination under Rule 11.
vii.
cities in Bangladesh, the export-oriented nature of operations of foreign producers, and availability of alternative markets, cannot take precedence over an injury examination under Rule 11. vii. The importance of jute sector to the economy of Bangladesh has no relevance to the investigation.
G.2. Views of the domestic industry
The domestic industry has made the following miscellaneous submissions: i. Exports of subject goods are also important for the economy of Bangladesh, as evident from the fact that exports of raw jute, conventional jute products and versatile jute products account for 3.86% of export earnings. ii. The importance of Indian market to the producers in Bangladesh is evident from the history of circumvention, and multiple new shipper reviews conducted in the case. The Government of Bangladesh is taking effective steps to neutralize the anti- dumping duty imposed by the Government of India, such as allowing Cash Subsidy and Export Incentives. iii. The Customs notification issued pursuant to the sunset review inadvertently did not include sacking cloth. Till the correction of the error through a corrigendum, the imports of sacking cloth from Bangladesh increased by 211%. iv. Since duty was imposed on a type-wise basis, it has resulted in a situation where imports of product subject to lower or nil duties have increased, whereas imports of products subject to higher duties have reduced. Therefore, a single quantum of duty should be imposed for the product, as done in other investigations. v.
duties have increased, whereas imports of products subject to higher duties have reduced. Therefore, a single quantum of duty should be imposed for the product, as done in other investigations. v. There is a need to revert to producer-exporter specific duty, as the present producer- specific duty is being misused by the foreign producers. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
33 vi. The domestic industry has relied on published DGIC&S data, which is available to all parties, and not on any confidential data, as alleged by opposing parties. vii. The prices of each product type have been assessed based on the data reported in a particular HS Code, which can be examined by the Authority. The assertion that the prices do not correlate with the expectation of the interested parties does not render the official published data unreliable. viii. Contrary to arguments of interested parties, the injury information has been provided on record. The Authority may seek, verify, and consider additional information as necessary to arrive at a proper determination.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
The domestic industry has claimed that duties should not be levied on a product-type basis, rather one uniform duty should be applied to all product types.
G.3. Examination by the Authority
The domestic industry has claimed that duties should not be levied on a product-type basis, rather one uniform duty should be applied to all product types. The domestic industry has also requested that the Authority revert to producer and exporter-specific duty, to avoid exploitation of present duty structure by exporters or traders. The interested parties contend that the duty structure cannot be reviewed in a mid-term review. The Authority finds that the form of duty may be changed in a mid-term review. In fact, vide Office Memorandum dated 18th June 2019, the Authority has noted that the form of duty may change in a mid-term review.
“6. Any interested party, including domestic industry, can seek a review under rule 23 and 24 of AD and CVD Rules respectively to alter the quantum or form of existing AD/ CVD duty. The changed circumstances which may warrant a review may include changes in raw material prices, costs, duty structure, exchange rate etc. The Authority would consider a fresh POI for such a review and evaluate all key parameters viz dumping margin or subsidy margin, injury margin and landed value for this chosen POI. The modified AD/ CVD, including the form, would be based on this comprehensive re-computation.”
The Authority shall, however, examine the issue concerning need for modification in the form of duty, after it arrives at a conclusion that there has been a change in circumstances of lasting nature, warranting modification of duty.
issue concerning need for modification in the form of duty, after it arrives at a conclusion that there has been a change in circumstances of lasting nature, warranting modification of duty.
The interested parties have argued that since the domestic industry did not provide injury information in the application, it should be precluded from submitting the same subsequently. The Authority notes that the applicants filed the application for initiation of mid-term review in the form and manner prescribed. The application sought enhancement of duty and contained information relevant for demonstrating the need for review. Having duly satisfied itself on the basis of prima facie evidence substantiating the need for a mid-term review, the Authority initiated the present review. Once a review has been initiated, it is within the powers of the Authority to call for and take on record such information, as may be relevant for arriving at the final findings. The Authority 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
itiated, it is within the powers of the Authority to call for and take on record such information, as may be relevant for arriving at the final findings. The Authority 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
34 further notes that the injury information was provided by the domestic industry within the deadline notified, and therefore, the interested parties had ample opportunity to defend their interests in this regard. Therefore, the Authority finds it appropriate to rely on the injury information submitted by the domestic industry.
The domestic industry has claimed that the subject goods are critical to the economy of Bangladesh, and the Government of Bangladesh provides subsidizes to neutralize the duties provided. The domestic industry has also highlighted the steep increase in imports of sacking cloth during the period when such cloth was exempt from duties. The Authority, however, notes that subsidies given by Government of subject country hold limited relevance in examining the merits of the present review. The Authority has, therefore, not examined the same.
H. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
H.1 Submission by the other interested parties
The other interested parties have made the following submissions. i.
H. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN
H.1 Submission by the other interested parties
The other interested parties have made the following submissions.
i.
The Authority has not examined the submissions of the interested parties in
issuance of the final sampling notification, and has not provided reasons for
rejecting the submissions made by interested parties.
ii.
Salim Limited has not consented to being considered as a part of the sample. As
per Rule 17(3), selection for sampling shall preferably be made in consultation and
consent of exporters/producers.
iii.
If Salim is included in sampling despite bona fide reasons of closure of its business,
then its margins determined will tend to be comparatively higher. This will affect
the weighted average margin for other non-sampled producers.
iv.
Despite complete cooperation and exports in significant quantities, Arnu Jute Mills
has been excluded from the sampled producers. No justification has been provided
for exclusion of Arnu Jute Mills.
v.
Hasan Jute & Spinning Mills Limited and Hasan Jute Mills Limited, Janata Jute
Mills Limited, Sagar Spinning Mills Limited, Oriental Jute Mills Limited, Sonali
Aansh Industries Limited and Sidlaw Textiles (Bangladesh) Limited have exported
significant quantities, but have not been sampled.
vi.
According to Rule 17(3) of the Rules, the DGTR Manual, and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, sample selected must represent the largest percentage of export
volume.
ties, but have not been sampled. vi. According to Rule 17(3) of the Rules, the DGTR Manual, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, sample selected must represent the largest percentage of export volume. In the present case, even though exports by Arnu Jute Mills is higher than that of Lovely Jute Mills, the former has been excluded from the sample, while Lovely Jute Mills has been selected. vii. In the sunset review, Arnu Jute was selected as a part of the sampled producers. The same approach of selecting producers based on export volumes should be 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
35 considered in the present case as well, since the mid-term review is a continuation of the same duty framework as the sunset review. viii. Global investigating authorities such as those in USA and European Union determine the sample based on largest volume of exports. ix. In the ongoing countervailing duty investigation, the sample has been proposed based on volume of exports. x. In numerous previous investigations, the Authority has determined the sample having regard to higher export volumes, representativeness in the data of the exporting country, and availability of complete and reliable data. However, the same has not been done in the present case. xi. Exclusion of Arnu from sample would result in the application of the residual or weighted average duty rate to its exports.
able data. However, the
same has not been done in the present case.
xi.
Exclusion of Arnu from sample would result in the application of the residual or
weighted average duty rate to its exports. This would not reflect the actual export
prices, costs, or dumping margin of Arnu, thereby causing material prejudice to the
producer.
xii. As per Article 6.10 and 6.10.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, individual margins
must be granted to cooperating exporters unless their examination would be unduly
burdensome.
xiii. The allegations by the domestic industry regarding quality of responses are general
in nature, and should not affect the consideration of responses by cooperating
producers.
xiv. Unless a party refuses the relevant information, or significantly impedes the
investigation, the response filed cannot be rejected.
xv.
Since the questionnaire responses do not require that information with regard to
2020-21 be provided, the responses cannot be considered deficient on grounds of
failure to provide such information.
xvi. The allegation of particular market situation cannot be accepted, in the absence of
a direct and demonstratable impact of government intervention of input costs
actually incurred by the producers. The same was also held by Panel in European
Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies II.
xvii. The domestic industry has not demonstrated that the alleged distortion in prices of
raw jute precludes proper comparison between normal value and export price.
H.2 Submission by the domestic industry
c industry has not demonstrated that the alleged distortion in prices of raw jute precludes proper comparison between normal value and export price.
H.2 Submission by the domestic industry
The domestic industry has made the following submissions.
xviii. A particular market situation exists in Bangladesh, owing to Government
regulations, administered support, directed procurement, incentives and controls
affecting raw jute prices. The input prices are, therefore, influenced by State action
rather than independent market forces, which confers cost advantages to foreign
producers.
xix. The jute sector in Bangladesh is regulated through the Jute Act, 2017 and the
National Jute Policy, 2018, which provide for government oversight of production,
procurement, pricing, trade and supply of raw jute and jute goods.
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
36 xx. The Jute Act, inter alia, allows the Government of Bangladesh to regulate trade in jute and jute products, undertake public procurement, adopt price stabilization measures, fix minimum and maximum prices for different grades, regulate or prohibit sale or export, direct sales to specific persons, and determine sales prices between parties. xxi. Budgetary incentives, free high-yield seeds and agriculture benefits are also provided to farmers for jute cultivation. xxii.
to specific persons, and determine sales prices
between parties.
xxi. Budgetary incentives, free high-yield seeds and agriculture benefits are also
provided to farmers for jute cultivation.
xxii. Producers located in Export Processing Zones and Economic Zones receive
additional concessions, including with regard to electricity tariff, stamp duty, and
VAT exemptions.
xxiii. The information provided on record reveals that domestic prices of raw jute are
materially lower than export prices.
xxiv. Under Section 9A(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act, where because of a particular
market situation, domestic sales do not permit proper comparison, normal value
may be determined on an alternative basis. Reliance in this regard has also been
placed on amendments made by European Commission to its Basic Anti-Dumping
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (notably via 2017/2321 and 2018/825) to address
“significant distortions” and “particular market situations”.
xxv. Since the government control constitutes particular market situation, due to which
domestic prices and costs in Bangladesh do not permit a proper comparison, the
normal value cannot be determined on the basis of domestic prices in Bangladesh.
The normal value is required to be constructed by considering undistorted
benchmarks, including international prices of raw jute
xxvi. Market-intelligence and participation by exporter indicate instances where reported
exports exceed installed capacity.
ring undistorted
benchmarks, including international prices of raw jute
xxvi. Market-intelligence and participation by exporter indicate instances where reported
exports exceed installed capacity. Strict verification of capacity and reconciliation
with export volumes for all producers (sampled and non-sampled) is required in
this regard.
xxvii. The response filed by foreign producers should not be accepted, unless they are
found to be complete in all material aspects.
xxviii. The responses filed lack consistency with observed trade patterns in regard to
capacity, product mix, and pricing. Claims of the exporters are requested to be
verified against verified trade data and the overall market trend profile placed on
record.
xxix. In line with global best practice, the Authority should conduct a completeness test
before accepting exporter responses to check whether responses cover all company
operations relevant to the product under consideration, to ensure credibility of the
record.
xxx. Mere Excel files do not constitute sufficient evidence and relevant information
should be called upon for the purpose of verifying the response. Non-confidential
version should also be filed of all such information and evidence being filed by the
exporters
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
called upon for the purpose of verifying the response. Non-confidential version should also be filed of all such information and evidence being filed by the exporters 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
37
xxxi. Weighted-average margin shall be determined having regard to the margins for the
cooperative exporters, and rejection of response of a producer has no relevance in
this regard.
xxxii. Any request seeking exclusion from the sample or grant of an individual dumping
margin, beyond sample, is inconsistent with the Rules and should be rejected.
xxxiii.
Once Salim Agro has filed a response, it implies an intention to participate in
the investigation.
xxxiv.
If Salim Agro has ceased operations, or did not intend to participate, the same
should have been brought on record, at appropriate stage, with necessary evidence.
xxxv. Contrary to arguments of the interested parties, there is no infirmity in the sampling
exercise.
xxxvi.
As opposed to the argument of interested parties, the sampling methodology has
remained consistent across investigations. The composition of the sample
necessarily varies based on the facts of the case.
xxxvii. The past inclusion of Arnu Jute in the sample does not create any vested right
for the producer to be included in the present investigation.
H.3 Examination by the Authority
case. xxxvii. The past inclusion of Arnu Jute in the sample does not create any vested right for the producer to be included in the present investigation.
H.3 Examination by the Authority
Under section 9A (1) (c), normal value in relation to an article means:
i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when
meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in
accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6), or
ii) When there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the
domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the
particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the
exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the
normal value shall be either: (a)comparable representative price of the like article
when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third
country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or
the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with
reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profit, as
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section 6);
article in the country of origin along with
reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profit, as
determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section 6);
b) Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the
country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the
country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export oi there
is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be
determined with reference to its price in the country of origin.
The Authority notes that 38 producers / exporters from Bangladesh and 5 producers from Nepal have furnished response to the exporter’s questionnaire.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
38 3. As per the provisions of Rule 17, while the Authority shall determine individual dumping margin in respect of all those producers/exporters who have filed questionnaire responses; in a situation where a large number of producers/ exporters from Bangladesh have filed questionnaire responses, the Authority may resort to sampling by limiting the response to a limited number of producers. The Rules provides as follows in this regard.
ers from Bangladesh have filed questionnaire responses, the Authority may resort to sampling by limiting the response to a limited number of producers. The Rules provides as follows in this regard.
“17(3) The designated authority shall determine an individual margin of dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the article under investigation:
Provided that in cases where the number of exporters, producers, importers or types of articles involved are so large as to make such determination impracticable, it may limit its findings either to a reasonable number of interested parties or articles by using statistically valid samples based on information available at the time of selection, or to the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated, and any selection, of exporters, producers, or types of articles, made under this proviso shall preferably be made in consultation with and with the consent of the exporters, producers or importers concerned :
Provided further that the designated authority shall, determine an individual margin of dumping for any exporter or producer, though not selected initially, who submit necessary information in time, except where the number of exporters or producers are so large that individual examination would be unduly burdensome and prevent the timely completion of the investigation.”
In view of the large number of responses from Bangladesh, the Authority considered sampling of producers from Bangladesh.
burdensome and prevent the timely completion of the investigation.”
In view of the large number of responses from Bangladesh, the Authority considered
sampling of producers from Bangladesh. The same was proposed vide notification dated
2nd January 2026. After receiving comments from various parties, the sampled producers
were notified vide notification dated 10th February 2026. The Authority has adopted a
stratified sampling methodology, and selected responding producer exporters for sample
amongst the high, medium and low band of export volumes to India. The following
producers were considered as a part of the sample.
i.
A. M. Jute Industries Limited, Bangladesh
ii.
Asha Jute Industries Limited, Bangladesh
iii.
Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Ltd., Bangladesh
iv.
Lovely Jute Mills Limited, Bangladesh
v.
M/s Natore Jute Mills, Bangladesh
vi.
Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd., Bangladesh
vii. M/s Poddar Agro Industries, Bangladesh
viii. Ranu Agro Industries Ltd., Bangladesh
ix.
Salim Agro Industries Limited, Bangladesh
x.
Super Jute Mills Limited, Bangladesh
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
r Agro Industries, Bangladesh
viii. Ranu Agro Industries Ltd., Bangladesh
ix.
Salim Agro Industries Limited, Bangladesh
x.
Super Jute Mills Limited, Bangladesh
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
39 70. Salim Agro Industries Limited (“Salim Agro”) initially submitted that it has not consented to being a part of the sampled producers. The Authority notes that while the Rules provide that the sample be selected preferably in consultation with and with the consent of foreign producers, it does not mandate that explicit consent of a producer must be again taken for selection of the producer within a sample, even if the producer has already filed a complete response, with the intention of participating before the Authority. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17th February 2026, Salim Agro withdrew its response from the investigation. Therefore, the response filed has not been considered for the purpose of determination.
Arnu Jute Mills Limited (“Arnu Jute”) has contended that it should have been considered as a part of the sample, in line with the findings in the previous sunset review. Further, Arnu Jute and certain other producers claimed that they should have been considered as a part of the sample, based on volume of exports.
ne with the findings in the previous sunset review. Further, Arnu Jute and certain other producers claimed that they should have been considered as a part of the sample, based on volume of exports. Under Rule 17(3), the sampled producers may be selected using statistically valid samples based on information available at the time of selection, or having regard to the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated. The Authority notes that in the sunset review, the sample was determined to select exporters with different quantum of exports to India. Arnu Jute formed part of the sample, based on such criterion. The same criterion was also applied in the original investigation. In the present mid-term review as well, the Authority has selected responding producer exporters for sample amongst the high, medium and low band of export volumes to India. Such method of sampling, that is, selection of a statistically valid sample, is permissible under the Rules. Once the Authority has opted to determine a statistically valid sample, it is not required to examine whether there is a responding non-sampled producer with a larger export volume than certain producers forming part of sample. Therefore, whether Arnu Jute has higher or lower export volumes than individual producers forming part of the sampled producers is not relevant to the present determination.
part of sample. Therefore, whether Arnu Jute has higher or lower export volumes than individual producers forming part of the sampled producers is not relevant to the present determination.
The Authority does not find merit in the contention of the interested parties that there is a mandatory obligation to consider voluntary responses filed and allow an individual dumping margin to all exporters. Rule 17(3) and its proviso make it amply clear that the Authority may limit examination to certain exporters, where necessary in the interest of timely completion of the investigation.
Certain interested parties have claimed that they shall be prejudiced in case the response of certain sampled producers are rejected. However, the Authority notes that the dumping margin and injury margin for the non-sampled cooperative producers has been determined based on the weighted average margin for sampled producers, excluding producers found to have de minimis margins, or for whom the margin has been determined by applying facts available. Therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the non-sampled producers, due to rejection of response of sampled producers.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
een determined by applying facts available. Therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the non-sampled producers, due to rejection of response of sampled producers.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
40 74. Further, the following producers from Nepal have submitted a response to the exporter’s questionnaire. The response filed by such producers has been considered for the purpose of determination of dumping margin and injury margin. xi. Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd., Nepal xii. Baba Jute Mills Private Limited, Nepal xiii. Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited, Nepal xiv. Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited, Nepal xv. Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd., Nepal
The domestic industry has claimed that a particular market situation exists in Bangladesh, due to government influence and intervention in the raw jute sector. As a result, raw jute, which is the principal input, is supplied to producers in the subject country at prices that are not reflective of fair market conditions. The domestic industry claims that the Government of Bangladesh, through statutory instruments, policy and administrative measures, has influenced and artificially lowered the prices of raw jute. The domestic industry has relied upon the Jute Act, 2017 and the National Jute Policy, 2018 in support of its arguments.
e measures, has influenced and artificially lowered the prices of raw jute. The domestic industry has relied upon the Jute Act, 2017 and the National Jute Policy, 2018 in support of its arguments. However, the Authority notes that even if assuming the raw jute prices are distorted resulting in a particular market situation, the arguments of the domestic industry do not explain why such particular market situation prevents proper comparison between normal value and export price. Further, a parallel anti-subsidy investigation is ongoing with regard to the same product, wherein such factors can be adequately addressed.
The Authority notes that as per the provisions of Section 9A(1)(c) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, normal value is required to be determined based on the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like article, when destined for consumption in the exporting country. However, when because of a particular market situation, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value may be determined on alternative basis. In this regard, the Panel in Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper (WT/DS529/R) has also observed as under.
“7.73. Where a "particular market situation" is found to exist, the investigating authority must examine whether "a proper comparison" of the domestic and the export price is permitted or not. We consider that the "proper comparison" language calls for an assessment in respect of the comparison of domestic and export prices.
7.74.
he domestic and the export price is permitted or not. We consider that the "proper comparison" language calls for an assessment in respect of the comparison of domestic and export prices.
7.74. The ordinary meaning of the term "proper" is "suitable for a specified or implicit purpose or requirement; appropriate to the circumstances or conditions; … apt, fitting; correct, right". The term "comparison" can be understood as "the action, or an act, of comparing, or noting the similarities and differences of two or more things". The function of the "permit a proper comparison" test is to determine whether the domestic price can or cannot be used as a basis for comparison with 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
41 the export price to identify the existence of dumping. It is implied here in Article 2.2 that the words "a proper comparison" refer to the comparison between the domestic price and the export price. Thus, the purpose of an investigating authority's examination under the second clause of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is to determine whether domestic sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade do not permit a proper comparison between the export price and the domestic sales price because of the particular market situation or the low volume.
7.75.
oduct in the ordinary course of trade do not permit a proper comparison between the export price and the domestic sales price because of the particular market situation or the low volume.
7.75. While the proper comparison in Article 2.2 refers to the comparison between the domestic and export prices, a purely numerical comparison between the two prices may not reveal anything about whether the domestic price can be properly compared with the export price. Rather, it is necessary to conduct a qualitative comparison of the domestic and export prices. The phrase "because of the particular market situation" makes clear that the qualitative assessment of whether the domestic and export prices can be properly compared should focus on how the particular market situation affects that comparison. We therefore consider that the "proper comparison" language calls for an assessment of the relative effect of the particular market situation on domestic and export prices. We understand that, in certain circumstances, as a result of this assessment, the investigating authority may conclude that the particular market situation has no effect on the export prices.
7.76. Turning to the assessment of whether "a proper comparison" is not permitted because of the particular market situation, we note that the focus of the analysis is on whether the effect of the particular market situation is such that a proper comparison between domestic sales prices and export prices under examination is not permitted.
cus of the analysis is on whether the effect of the particular market situation is such that a proper comparison between domestic sales prices and export prices under examination is not permitted. In other words, the investigating authority must examine the domestic sales in order to determine whether a proper comparison between the two prices is permitted in spite of the effect of the particular market situation. The point is to determine if there is a comparable domestic price (i.e. if there is "the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country" in the sense of GATT 1994 Article VI:1(b) and Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement). That determination is fact-specific and should be made on a case-by-case basis by the investigating authority assessing the effect of particular market situation on the domestic price in relation to the effect on the export price, if any. This relative assessment is necessary because, as we explain in the following subsection, while a particular market situation may have an effect on both domestic and export prices, it does not follow that the impact on domestic and export prices will be the same. If the investigating authority finds that because of a particular market situation a proper comparison of the domestic price and the export price is not permitted, it is required to give a reasoned and adequate explanation of its conclusion.” 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
uation a proper comparison of the domestic price and the export price is not permitted, it is required to give a reasoned and adequate explanation of its conclusion.” 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
42
The Authority notes that if raw material prices are lower, as claimed by the domestic industry, it will result in lower selling price of the final product generally, irrespective of whether such final product is meant for domestic market or export market, unless proved otherwise. While it is not denied that there may be cases where the raw material prices disproportionately affect the domestic and export prices, the same has not been demonstrated to be the case in the present situation. In view of the same, the Authority has not found it appropriate to conclude that a particular market situation prevented proper comparison of normal value with export price in Bangladesh, warranting construction of normal value.
The normal value and export prices for all the producers/exporters from the subject countries have been determined as below:
Determination of Normal Value and Export Price
H.3.1. Normal value for Bangladesh
Normal value for M/s A. M. Jute Industries Limited
During the period of investigation, M/s A. M. Jute Industries Limited (“A. M. Jute”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. A. M.
Jute Industries Limited
During the period of investigation, M/s A. M. Jute Industries Limited (“A. M. Jute”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. A. M. Jute has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test to determine profit by making domestic sales transactions with reference to the cost of production of the subject goods, on a PCN wise basis. In case of PCNs, with where more than 80% of sales were made at profits, the normal value has been determined based on the ex-factory selling price. Where less than 80% sales were made at profits, the normal value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. A. M. Jute has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production of the PCN with a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been calculated as mentioned in the dumping margin table below
Normal value for M/s Asha Jute Industries Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
hted average normal value at ex-factory level has been calculated as mentioned in the dumping margin table below
Normal value for M/s Asha Jute Industries Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
43 82. During the period of investigation, M/s Asha Jute Industries Limited (“Asha Jute”) has not sold goods in domestic market. In the absence of domestic sales, the Authority has considered the cost of production of the producer as the basis for the purpose of determining the normal value.
The Authority determined the normal value based on cost of production with reasonable additions towards selling, general and administration expenses and profits. The product type-wise and weighted average normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal value for M/s Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Ltd.
During the period of investigation, M/s Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Ltd. (“Bonanza Jute”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Bonanza Jute has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales.
ompared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Bonanza Jute has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
Normal value for M/s Lovely Jute Mills Limited
During the period of investigation, M/s Lovely Jute Mills Limited (“Lovely Jute”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Lovely Jute has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Lovely Jute has not 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
e the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Lovely Jute has not 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
44 claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for M/s Natore Jute Mills
During the period of investigation, M/s Natore Jute Mills (“Natore”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Natore has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Natore has claimed price adjustments on account of inland transportation from its domestic sales and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification.
lling price of profitable sales. Natore has claimed price adjustments on account of inland transportation from its domestic sales and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd.
During the period of investigation, Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd. (“Nawhata”) has sold ***MT of sacking cloth in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Nawhata has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
c sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
45 value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Nawhata has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for M/s Poddar Agro Industries
During the period of investigation, Poddar Agro Industires (“Poddar”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Poddar has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Poddar has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales.
the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Poddar has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for Ranu Agro Industries Ltd.
It is noted from the response that during the period of investigation, Ranu Agro Industries Ltd. (“Ranu Agro”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Ranu Agro has exported *** MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
46 value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Ranu Agro has not claimed any price adjustments from its domestic sales. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
- The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for Super Jute Mills Limited
-
It is noted from the response that during the period of investigation, Super Jute Mills Limited (“Super Jute”) has sold ***MT of goods in domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Super Jute has exported ***MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
-
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales.
*** MT of goods in domestic market in the domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Baba Jute has exported *** MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. The Authority notes that the domestic sales are in sufficient volumes when compared with exports to India.
-
To determine the normal value, the Authority has conducted ordinary course of trade test value has been determined based on selling price of profitable sales. Baba Jute has claimed price adjustments on account of credit costs from its domestic sales and the same has been allowed by the Authority after verification. For PCNs where negligible volume of sales were made at profits, or where the PCN has not been sold in the home market, the normal value has been determined based on cost of production, plus a reasonable addition towards selling, general and administrative expenses and profits.
-
The product type-wise and weighted average normal value at ex-factory level has been
Normal value for M/s Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited
-
During the period of investigation, M/s Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited (“SPJMPL”) has not sold goods in domestic market. In the absence of domestic sales, the Authority has considered the cost of production of the producer as the basis for the purpose of determining the normal value.
-
The Authority determined the normal value based on cost of production with reasonable additions towards selling, general and administration expenses and profits.
termining the normal value.
- The Authority determined the normal value based on cost of production with reasonable additions towards selling, general and administration expenses and profits. The PCN wise and weighted average normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal value for M/s Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
52
-
During the period of investigation, Swastik has sold *** MT of goods in domestic market in the domestic market directly to unrelated customers. Swastik Jute has exported *** MT of product under consideration to India during the period of investigation. Therefore, the producer does not have domestic sales in sufficient quantities to permit the determination of normal value. In the absence of sufficient volume of domestic sales, the Authority has considered the cost of production of the producer as the basis for the purpose of determining the normal value.
-
The Authority determined the normal value based on cost of production with reasonable additions towards selling, general and administration expenses and profits. The PCN- wise and weighted average normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal value for all other producers / exporters from Nepal
es and profits. The PCN- wise and weighted average normal value so determined has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
Normal value for all other producers / exporters from Nepal
- The normal value for all other producers and exporters, that have not participated in the present investigation, has been determined as per facts available. The same has been mentioned in the dumping margin table.
H.3.4. Export price for Nepal
Export price for M/s Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd. and Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited
- During the period of investigation, Arihant has sold *** MT of Hessian, *** MT of Sacking and *** MT of Jute Yarn directly to unrelated customers in India. During the period of investigation, Shree Raghupati has sold *** MT of Hessian, *** MT of Sacking and *** MT of Jute Yarn directly to unrelated customers in India.
The export price has been determined based on the price of sale charged by the producer for sales to unrelated customers in India. Arihant has claimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, credit cost, certificate of origin expenses, and brokerage/commission. Shree Raghupati has claimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, credit cost, Certificate of Origin expenses, and brokerage/commission. The same have been allowed by the Authority after verification. The Authority has calculated PCN-wise export price for exports of goods produced by Arihant and Shree Raghupati and compared the same with the normal value for the respective PCN by each producer.
The Authority has calculated PCN-wise export price for exports of goods produced by Arihant and Shree Raghupati and compared the same with the normal value for the respective PCN by each producer. A weighted average dumping margin was determined accordingly. The net export price and dumping margin so determined has been mentioned in the table below.
Export price for M/s Baba Jute Mills Private Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
53 137. During the period of investigation, Baba Jute has sold *** MT of Hessian, *** MT of Sacking and *** MT of Jute Yarn directly to unrelated customers in India.
- The export price has been determined based on the price of sale charged by the producer for sales to unrelated customers in India. Baba Jute has claimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, credit cost, certificate of origin expenses, and export commission and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification. The Authority has calculated PCN-wise export price for exports of goods produced by Baba Jute and compared the same with the normal value for the respective PCN. A weighted average dumping margin was determined accordingly. The net export price and dumping margin so determined has been mentioned in the table below.
Export price for M/s Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited
s determined accordingly. The net export price and dumping margin so determined has been mentioned in the table below.
Export price for M/s Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited
-
During the period of investigation, SPJMPL has sold *** MT of Hessian, *** MT of Sacking and *** MT of Jute Yarn directly to unrelated customers in India.
-
The export price has been determined based on the price of sale charged by the producer for sales to unrelated customers in India. SPJMPL has claimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, credit cost, Certificate of Origin charges, and other expenses and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification. The Authority has calculated PCN-wise export price for exports of goods produced by SPJMPL and compared the same with the normal value for the respective PCN. A weighted average dumping margin was determined accordingly. The net export price and dumping margin so determined has been mentioned in the table below.
Export price for M/s Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd.
-
During the period of investigation, Swastik has sold *** MT of Hessian, *** MT of Sacking and *** MT of Jute Yarn directly to unrelated customers in India.
-
The export price has been determined based on the price of sale charged by the producer for sales to unrelated customers in India. Swastik has claimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, Certificate of origin charges, credit cost, commission and other deduction and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification.
laimed adjustments on account of Customs service fees, Certificate of origin charges, credit cost, commission and other deduction and the same have been allowed by the Authority after verification. The Authority has calculated PCN-wise export price for exports of goods produced by Shree Raghupati compared the same with the normal value for the respective PCN. A weighted average dumping margin was determined accordingly. The net export price and dumping margin so determined has been mentioned in the table below.
Export price for other producers / exporters in Nepal
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
54 143. The export price for all other non-cooperating producers and exporters from Nepal has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below.
H.3.5. Dumping margin
- Based on normal value and export price as determined above, the dumping margin has been determined below.
SN Particulars Volume Exported Normal Value Export Price Dumping Margin Dumping Margin Dumping Margin
MT USD/MT USD/MT USD/MT % Range A Bangladesh 1 A. M.
ermined below.
SN Particulars Volume Exported Normal Value Export Price Dumping Margin Dumping Margin Dumping Margin
MT USD/MT USD/MT USD/MT % Range A Bangladesh 1 A. M. Jute Industries Limited
a Jute Yarn
Negative b Hessian
Negative c Weighted average
Negative 2 Asha Jute Industries Limited
a Jute Yarn
5-15% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
5-15% c Weighted average
5-15% 3 Bonanza Jute Composite & Diverse Factory Ltd.
a Sacking Bag / cloth
Negative
b
Weighted average
Negative 4 Lovely Jute Mills Limited
a Sacking Bag / Cloth
5-15% b Weighted average
5-15% 5 M/s Natore Jute Mills
a Jute Yarn
5-15% b Sacking Cloth
Negative c Weighted average
Negative 6 Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd.
a Sacking Bag / Cloth
Negative b Weighted average
Negative 7 M/s Poddar Agro Industries
a Jute Yarn
Negative b Sacking Bag / Cloth
Negative 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Negative 7 M/s Poddar Agro Industries
a Jute Yarn
Negative b Sacking Bag / Cloth
Negative 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
55 c Weighted average
Negative 8 Ranu Agro Industries Ltd.
a Sacking Bag / Cloth
Negative c Weighted average
Negative 9 Super Jute Mills Limited
a Jute Yarn
10-20% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
10-20% c Weighted average
10-20% 10 Non-Sampled Cooperative Producers
a Jute Yarn
5-15% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
5-15% c Hessian Not Determined d Weighted average
5-15% 11 Any other producer
a Jute Yarn
55-65% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
40-50% c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
45-55% B Nepal 1 Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd.
65% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
40-50% c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
45-55% B Nepal 1 Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd.
a Jute Yarn
De Minimis b Sacking Bag
Negative c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
De Minimis 2 Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited
a Jute Yarn
0-10% b Sacking Bag
Negative c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
0-10% 3 Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd. and Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Limited
a Jute Yarn
De Minimis b Sacking Bag
Negative c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
0-10% 4 Baba Jute Mills Private Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
**
Negative c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
0-10% 4 Baba Jute Mills Private Limited
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
56 a Jute Yarn
0-10% b Sacking Bag
20-30% c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
10-20% 5 Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited
a Jute Yarn
0-10% b Sacking Bag
0-10% c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
0-10% 6 Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd.
a Jute Yarn
10-20% b Sacking Bag
5-15% c Hessian
0-10% d Weighted average
0-10% 7 Any other producer
a Jute Yarn
10-20% b Sacking Bag
20-30% c Hessian
20-30% d Weighted average
20-30%
I. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
I.1. Views of the other interested parties
- The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury, causal link, and injury margin: a.
Y AND CAUSAL LINK
I.1. Views of the other interested parties
- The other interested parties have made the following submissions with regard to injury,
causal link, and injury margin:
a.
The Authority has previously found absence of dumping by major producers from
Bangladesh, indicating that the cause of concern for the domestic industry is not
the imports from Bangladesh.
b.
Indian Government procures Indian made jute sacking bags from the domestic
producers, and such domestic producers enjoy monopoly in the market.
c.
The fact that the imports have increased demonstrates that the imports are
necessitated due to demand-supply gap in the country.
d.
The sales of the domestic industry have increased, despite the decline in import
prices, indicating absence of correlation between the two.
e. Market share of imports from Bangladesh has declined in the period of investigation.
I.2. Views of the domestic industry
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
ce of correlation between the two.
e.
Market share of imports from Bangladesh has declined in the period of
investigation.
I.2. Views of the domestic industry
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
57
146. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to injury, causal
link, and injury margin:
a.
The jute industry is divided into two segments – government procurement and open
market, which have been previously examined separately. The same approach
should be adopted in the present case as well.
b.
Domestic industry is continuing to suffer the material injury on account of
continued dumped imports from the subject countries.
c.
Contrary to arguments made, the imports from subject countries have continued to
increase despite imposition of duty, in absolute terms and in relation to
consumption.
d.
The imports have increased, even though the domestic producers had sufficient
capacity to meet the domestic demand.
e.
The imports of the product have increased by 88% since 2011-12 to the period of
investigation, despite a decline in demand during this period. Such increase has
been at the cost of the market share of the domestic industry.
f.
The share of imports in open market has increased dramatically form 20% to 68%.
g.
Since the duty quantum on yarn from Bangladesh was low, the imports of yarn
increased significantly.
dustry.
f.
The share of imports in open market has increased dramatically form 20% to 68%.
g.
Since the duty quantum on yarn from Bangladesh was low, the imports of yarn
increased significantly. Further, during the period when there was no duty
applicable on sacking cloth, due to an error in Customs notification, the imports of
such product increased steeply.
h.
Since the duty quantum on hessian and sacking bags from Nepal was low, the
imports of such products increased, despite duties.
i.
The domestic market in the subject countries is insignificant compared to the
capacities installed. The focus of the governments of the subject countries, is to
increase the domestic production and exports. India is the single largest market for
the exports from Bangladesh.
j.
The landed price of imports has declined over the period.
k.
The subject imports are undercutting and suppressing the prices of the domestic
industry.
l.
Production and capacity utilization of the domestic industry increased till 2022-23
but have declined in the period of investigation.
m.
With the increase in import volumes, the Indian industry has lost sales volume in
the open market.
n.
The average inventories of the domestic industry have increased, indicating
weakened offtake of domestically produced goods.
o.
While the market share of imports has increased, the domestic producers have lost
market.
p.
The profits, cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry in
the open market have declined significantly.
q.
ts has increased, the domestic producers have lost market. p. The profits, cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry in the open market have declined significantly. q. Production of subject jute products is highly capital, manpower, machineries, and space intensive, considering that the raw jute is converted into finished yarn, fabric, and bags. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
58 r. The domestic industry employs 33,625 employees, with significant employment created in the jute industry. If operations of the industry are not viable, it would not be able to service their wages. s. The growth of the domestic industry has been adverse in both volume and profitability parameters. t. The arguments of interested parties with regard to sales volume and prices of the domestic industry, and market share of imports rely on the consolidated data, without segregating for open market. u. Contrary to argument of the interested parties, the exemption of certain exporters from duty does not imply lack of injury, as it does not negate dumping by other exporters. v. The absence of competition in government procurement does not negate the injury faced in the open market. w. The injury to the domestic industry has not been caused by other factors. There is causal link between dumping of the subject goods and the injury to the domestic industry.
I.3.
pen market. w. The injury to the domestic industry has not been caused by other factors. There is causal link between dumping of the subject goods and the injury to the domestic industry.
I.3. Examination by the Authority
-
As noted hereinabove, the scope of injury analysis in a mid-term review shall be limited to examining whether the circumstances prevailing at the time of original imposition have altered to such an extent as to justify withdrawal or modification of the duty. The Authority is not required to come to a conclusion of existence of injury, but is required to examine if the injury is not likely to continue or recur, if the duty is withdrawn. Having regard to the same, the Authority has examined the arguments and counter-arguments of the interested parties with regard to injury and causal link. The analysis made by the Authority hereunder addresses the various submissions made by the interested parties.
-
While the Authority is required to examine whether the withdrawal of duty is not likely to continue or recur, it has applied the same parameters as that notified under Rule 11 read with Annexure – II of the Anti-Dumping Rules.
-
The domestic industry has contended that there are two market segments in the present case – open market and government procurement. While the domestic industry is insulated against imports in the government procurement, it has faced competition against dumped imports in the open market.
– open market and government procurement. While the domestic industry is insulated against imports in the government procurement, it has faced competition against dumped imports in the open market. The domestic industry also submitted its segregated injury data, and the other interested parties had an opportunity to make submissions with regard to the same. The other interested parties have also acknowledged that the domestic industry does not compete with imports in government procurement. The Authority notes that in the previous investigations, the Authority has conducted injury analysis for the domestic industry as a whole, as well as segregated injury analysis for the two market segments. Since the present investigation is a mid-term review, and the focus is on examining whether the domestic industry is not likely to face injury if the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
59 anti-dumping duty is withdrawn, the Authority has examined injury for the domestic market as a whole, with due regard given to its performance in the open market.
I.3.1 Cumulative Assessment of Injury
- Article 3.3 of WTO agreement and para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules provides that in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: a.
oduct from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: a. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and b. A cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic articles.
-
In the instant case, volume of imports and dumping margin from each of the subject countries are more than the de-minimis. Further, the imports from the subject countries and the product manufactured by the domestic industry have inter-se comparable properties and is being used for the same applications and by the same segment of customers. Thus, the subject imports are competing in the Indian market inter-se as well as with the subject goods manufactured by the domestic industry.
-
The Authority thus, concludes that it would be appropriate to undertake cumulative assessment of injury in the present investigation for the following reasons. a.
by the domestic industry.
- The Authority thus, concludes that it would be appropriate to undertake cumulative
assessment of injury in the present investigation for the following reasons.
a.
The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries.
b. The margin of dumping from each of the subject countries is more than the de minimis limits prescribed under the Rules. c. The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more than 3% of the total volume of imports. d. Cumulative assessment of the effects of import is appropriate as the imports from the subject countries not only directly compete with the imports from each of the subject countries but also the like articles offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market.
I.3.2 Volume effect of dumped imports
i. Assessment of Demand/ Apparent Consumption
- The Authority, for the purpose of the present investigation, has defined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Authority, for the purpose of the present investigation, has defined demand or apparent consumption of the product in India as the sum of domestic sales of the Indian 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
60 producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below.
Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 (Dumped Imports) Sales of domestic industry MT 2,79,482 3,12,409 2,98,242 2,51,791
Sales of other producers MT 7,65,564 9,04,009 9,28,357 7,13,093
Subject imports
MT
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
1,39,696
Un-dumped imports from
subject countries
MT
26,720
Other imports
MT
Demand/Consumption MT 11,57,780 13,55,939 14,16,870 11,31,299
Source: Imports as per DG Systems data, and sales of domestic industry and other domestic producers as per injury information furnished by domestic industry
-
The Authority notes that the demand for the subject goods has increased till 2023-24 and declined in the period of investigation.
-
The Authority has also examined the demand in the open market. It is noted that the demand in the open market has shown the same trend.
2023-24 and declined in the period of investigation.
- The Authority has also examined the demand in the open market. It is noted that the demand in the open market has shown the same trend.
Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 (Dumped Imports) Sales of domestic industry MT 97,753 73,035 82,242 95,747
Sales of other producers MT 1,22,227 98,505 73,078 14,673
Subject imports
MT
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
1,39,696
Un-dumped imports from
subject countries
MT
26,720
Other imports
MT
Demand (open market) MT 3,32,714 3,11,060 3,45,592 2,76,835
Source: Imports as per DG Systems data, and sales of domestic industry and other domestic producers in open market as per segregated injury information furnished by domestic industry in its post-hearing written submissions
ii. Imports in absolute and relative terms
- With regard to the volume of dumped imports, it is required to be considered whether
there has been a significant increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or
relative to production or consumption in India. The volume of imports over the injury period was as follows:
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
increase in dumped imports either in absolute terms or
relative to production or consumption in India. The volume of imports over the injury
period was as follows:
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
61
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
2024-25
(Dumped
Imports)
Bangladesh
MT
69,693
94,652
1,43,815
1,17,523
99,668
Nepal
MT
43,041
44,868
46,456
48,893
40,028
Subject imports
MT
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
1,39,696
Un-dumped imports from
subject countries
MT
26,720
Other imports
MT
Total imports
MT
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
1,66,416
Consumption
MT
11,57,780 13,55,939 14,16,870 11,31,299 11,31,299
Indian production
MT
10,80,000 12,46,000 12,57,000
9,88,010
9,88,010
Imports from subject countries in relation to
Indian production
%
10%
11%
15%
17%
14%
Indian consumption
%
10%
10%
13%
15%
12%
Consumption in open
market
%
34%
45%
55%
60%
50%
Total imports
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
84%
Source: Imports as per DG Systems data, Indian production as per statement of Indian
production provided as part of injury annexures
- The Authority notes that: i. The volume of subject imports has increased over the injury period. The subject imports have increased by 69% in 2023-24 as compared to base year.
ry annexures
- The Authority notes that:
i.
The volume of subject imports has increased over the injury period. The subject
imports have increased by 69% in 2023-24 as compared to base year. In the period
of investigation, the subject imports declined compared to previous year. However,
the imports continue to remain higher than the base year. In this regard, it is seen
that while the un-dumped imports can be segregated during the period of
investigation, no such segregation can be made in previous years.
ii. The decline in imports in the period of investigation appears to be in response to the decline in demand. During the period of investigation, the demand has declined by 20% compared to the previous year. However, the imports from subject countries (dumped and un-dumped) registered a decline by only 13%. Over the injury period, while the demand has declined marginally, the subject imports have increased significantly. iii. The share of imports in the open market has also increased significantly, with the subject imports accounting for 51% of the market. The total imports from subject countries account for 60% of the market. iv. The imports from subject countries have increased significantly in relation to consumption, by 51% over the injury period. Compared to the previous year, the total imports from subject countries have increased by 9% in relation to consumption. Since the un-dumped imports have only been segregated for the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
previous year, the total imports from subject countries have increased by 9% in relation to consumption. Since the un-dumped imports have only been segregated for the 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
62 period of investigation, the dumped imports in relative terms do not show a commensurate increase, due to the volumes in previous years including data of such producers, that have found to be un-dumped. v. The imports from subject countries have also increased in relation to Indian production, from 10% in the base year, to 17% in the period of investigation, registering an increase of 61%. The imports have also increased by 11% in relation to production compared to previous year. vi. The imports from subject countries account for entirety of the imports into India, while the dumped imports account for 84% of the total imports.
I.3.3 Price effect of dumped imports on domestic industry
- With regard to the price effect of the imports from the subject countries, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged imports as compared to price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course.
red to price of the like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the imports from the subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, if any.
i. Price undercutting
- For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the net sales realisation of the domestic industry has been compared with the landed price of imports from subject countries, as below.
Particulars Unit Yarn Hessian Sacking * Total Open market
Total
(Dumpe
d
Imports
)
Import Volume
MT
59,046
34,752
72,618
1,66,416
1,66,416
140,243
Selling price
₹/MT
Landed price
₹/MT
77,122
104,957
83,114
85,549
85,549
85,296
Price undercutting
₹/MT
Price undercutting
%
Price undercutting
Range
10-20%
20-30%
20-30%
15-25%
20-30%
20-30%
Source: Imports and import prices as per DG Systems data, and prices of domestic
industry as per PCN-wise data and segregated data for open market submitted.
- Sacking bag and cloth in case of Bangladesh, sacking cloth in case of Nepal.
Excluding Government Supplies.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
63 160. It is noted that the subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in each of the product types – yarn, hessian and sacking. The weighted average price undercutting is positive and significant. Further, the subject imports are also undercutting the prices of the domestic industry in the open market.
ii. Price Suppression or Depression
- The Authority has examined whether the subject imports have suppressed or depressed the domestic prices. It is noted from the movement of cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry that both parameters declined over the injury period, with the decline in selling price being more pronounced than the decline in cost of sales.
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
2024-25
(Dumped
Imports)
Yarn
Landed price
₹/MT
98,487
86,227
72,692
77,122
77,305
Trend
Indexed
100
88
74
78
78
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
92
86
88
88
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
87
80
88
88
Hessian
Landed price
₹/MT
1,24,561
1,18,496
1,06,688
1,04,957
104,941
Trend
Indexed
100
95
86
84
84
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
101
89
85
85
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
96
88
rend
Indexed
100
95
86
84
84
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
101
89
85
85
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
96
88
82
82
Sacking*
Landed price
₹/MT
1,02,151
89,307
79,764
83,114
80,619
Trend
Indexed
100
87
78
81
79
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
96
89
92
92
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
95
89
91
91
Total subject goods as a whole
Landed price
₹/MT
1,06,731
93,844
81,313
85,549
85,296
Trend
Indexed
100
88
76
80
80
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
96
89
92
92
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
64
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
94
88
90
90
Open Market
Landed price
₹/MT
1,06,731
93,844
81,313
85,549
85,296
Trend
Indexed
100
88
76
80
80
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
101
85
88
88
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
93
79
81
81
Source: Imports and import prices as per DG Systems data, and prices of domestic
industry as per PCN-wise data and segregated data for open market submitted.
- Sacking bag and cloth in case of Bangladesh, sacking cloth in case of Nepal
tems data, and prices of domestic industry as per PCN-wise data and segregated data for open market submitted.
- Sacking bag and cloth in case of Bangladesh, sacking cloth in case of Nepal
-
It is noted that the prices of the domestic industry have moved almost in tandem with the changes in cost over the period, insofar as yarn and sacking are concerned. Particularly, in case of yar, while the prices declined steeply in 2022-23, they have relatively recovered during the period of investigation. However, in hessian, while the cost declined by 15% over the injury period, the decline in selling price was much higher.
-
On an overall basis, the selling price and cost of sales have declined in 2022-23 and 2023- 24, before recovering in the period of investigation. Over the injury period, while the cost of sales has declined by 8%, the selling price has declined by 10%. The decline in landed price has been much steeper. However, the Authority has also segregated and examined the trends in prices in the open market. It is noted that on a year-on-year basis, while the cost remained the same in 2022-23, the selling price declined by 7% compared to the previous year. Thereafter, in 2023-24, the cost and selling price reduced in tandem, before increasing in the period of investigation. Over the injury period, while the overall cost of goods sold in open market has reduced by 12%, the selling price has declined by 19%. Therefore, the imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry.
I.3.4 Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry
t has reduced by 12%, the selling price has declined by 19%. Therefore, the imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry.
I.3.4 Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry
- Annexure II to the Anti-Dumping Rules require that the determination of the injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic producers of the subject goods. With regards to the consequent impact of these imports on the domestic producers of subject goods, the Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry would include an objective unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
; factors affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
65 Accordingly, performance of the domestic industry has been examined over the injury period.
i. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales
- The performance of the domestic industry with regard to capacity, production, sales and capacity utilization over the injury period was as below:
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Capacity
MT
4,28,072
4,34,072
4,34,072
4,34,072
Total production in plant
MT
3,14,436
3,41,991
3,28,643
2,71,602
Capacity utilization
%
73%
79%
76%
63%
Production of subject goods
MT
3,14,143
3,41,647
3,28,301
2,71,229
Domestic sales
MT
2,79,482
3,12,409
2,98,242
2,51,791
Export sales
MT
33,183
28,400
26,416
29,431
Sales in open market
MT
1,96,318
2,48,798
2,16,055
1,56,917
Sales for government
procurement
MT
74,909
60,481
79,382
90,729
Source: As per injury information submitted by domestic industry, including segregated data for open market submitted in post hearing written submissions.
- The Authority has examined the trends in capacity, production, capacity utilisation and
sales of the domestic industry. The Authority notes that:
i.
d in post hearing written submissions.
- The Authority has examined the trends in capacity, production, capacity utilisation and
sales of the domestic industry. The Authority notes that:
i. It is noted that installed capacity increased only marginally over the injury period.
ii. Production and capacity utilisation increased up to 2022-23 and thereafter declined during the period of investigation. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry is underutilized, despite significant demand in the market. iii. The domestic sales volume has increased in 2022-23, and declined thereafter. The sales volume of the domestic industry has reduced by 10% over the period. By contrast, the demand has declined by only 2%. iv. As highlighted by other interested parties and the domestic industry, the domestic industry is insulated from competition in government procurement. The Authority notes that the sales for government procurement have increased by 21% over the period. v. By contrast, the sales in open market have declined by 20% over the injury period, and by 27% compared to the previous year. Therefore, the domestic industry has lost sales volume in the open market.
ii. Market share in demand
- The market share of subject imports, domestic industry and other producers over the period was as under. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
ume in the open market.
ii. Market share in demand
- The market share of subject imports, domestic industry and other producers over the period was as under. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
66
Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 (Dumped Imports) Share in total demand
Domestic industry
%
24%
23%
21%
22%
22%
Other producers
%
66%
67%
66%
63%
63%
Subject imports
%
10%
10%
13%
15%
12%
Un-dumped imports
%
3%
Other imports
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Share in open market
Domestic industry
%
29%
23%
24%
35%
35%
Other producers
%
37%
32%
21%
5%
5%
Subject imports
%
34%
45%
55%
60%
50%
Un-dumped imports
%
10%
Other imports
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Source: Imports as per DG Systems data. Sales of domestic industry and other
producers, as per injury information submitted by domestic industry, including
segregated data for open market submitted in post hearing written submissions.
- It is noted that the market share of the domestic industry, as well as that of the Indian industry as a whole, has declined over the injury period. In contrast, the market share of imports from subject countries has increased. If the comparison is made with reference to share in demand in the open market, while the domestic industry has gained market share, the Indian industry as a whole has lost market.
s has increased. If the comparison is made with reference to share in demand in the open market, while the domestic industry has gained market share, the Indian industry as a whole has lost market. In the meanwhile, the share of imports from subject countries has increased. Thus, over the injury period, the subject imports have gained market share at the expense of the domestic producers.
iii. Inventory
- Inventories of the domestic industry over the injury period were as follows.
Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Opening inventory MT 8,763 9,538 14,061 18,275 Closing inventory MT 9,504 14,061 18,275 11,554 Average inventory MT 9,133 11,800 16,168 14,914 Source: As per injury information submitted by domestic industry
- It is noted that the average inventories of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period. This is despite the fact that the domestic industry had actually reduced its significantly production during the period of investigation. Even then, it has continued to face accumulation of inventories. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
mestic industry had actually reduced its significantly production during the period of investigation. Even then, it has continued to face accumulation of inventories. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
67
iv. Employment, productivity and wages
- The Authority has examined the information relating to employment, wages and productivity, as given below:
Particulars Unit 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 No. of employees No. 33,851 33,908 35,424 33,625 Productivity per day MT/Day 898 976 938 775 Productivity per employee MT/No 9.28 10.08 9.27 8.07 Salaries & Wages ₹ lakhs 67,673 74,094 74,939 62,791 Source: As per injury information submitted by domestic industry
- The domestic industry has submitted that the production of the subject goods is highly capital-intensive and labour-intensive, involving significant manpower, machinery and infrastructure. The domestic industry employs a substantial workforce and incurs significant wage costs. The Authority notes that the number of employees increased till 2023-24 and thereafter declined during the period of investigation, with the same trend observed in salaries and wages. The productivity of the domestic industry has also declined in response to the decline in production.
v.
d during the period of investigation, with the same trend observed in salaries and wages. The productivity of the domestic industry has also declined in response to the decline in production.
v. Profitability, cash profits, and return on capital employed
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
96
89
92
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
94
88
90
Profit / loss
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
46
72
66
Profit / loss
₹ lakhs
Trend
Indexed
100
52
77
59
Cash profits
₹ lakhs
Trend
Indexed
100
66
90
77
Return on capital employed
%
Trend
Indexed
100
53
68
54
Source: As per injury information submitted by domestic industry
- The Authority notes that:
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
68
i.
It is noted that the profits of the domestic industry declined in 2022-23, and
improved slightly thereafter. However, the profits have declined again during the
period of investigation.
ii.
Over the injury period, the profits of the domestic industry have declined by 41%.
iii.
The cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have
followed the same trend.
ii.
Over the injury period, the profits of the domestic industry have declined by 41%.
iii.
The cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry have
followed the same trend. The cash profits of the domestic industry have declined
by 23% over the period, and return on capital employed have declined by 46%.
iv.
The domestic industry has not been able to earn a sufficient return on its capital
employed.
- The Authority has also examined the profitability of the domestic industry in the open market.
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Cost of sales
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
101
85
88
Selling price
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
93
79
81
Profit / loss
₹/MT
Trend
Indexed
100
-19
2
-8
Profit / loss
₹ lakhs
(***)
Trend
Indexed
100
-15
2
-10
Cash profits
₹ lakhs
(***)
Trend
Indexed
100
10
29
28
Return on capital employed
%
(***)
Trend
Indexed
100
-8
8
4
Source: As per segregated injury information for open market submitted in post hearing
written submissions.
- The Authority notes that the trends of profitability are the same in the open market as well, that is, declining in 2022-23, before improving in 2024-25, and declining again in the period of investigation. However, the performance of the domestic industry is much more adverse in the open market, with the domestic industry having faced losses in 2022- 23 and the period of investigation.
investigation. However, the performance of the domestic industry is much more adverse in the open market, with the domestic industry having faced losses in 2022- 23 and the period of investigation. The cash profits of the domestic industry have witnessed a decline by 72%, while the domestic industry has been able to earn an insignificant return in its operations.
vi. Growth
- The growth of the domestic industry in terms of volume and profitability parameters is as under.
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
69
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Capacity
%
1%
0%
0%
Production
%
9% -4% -17% Domestic sales %
14% -4% -16% Profit / loss %
-48% 49% -23% Cash profits %
-34%
36%
-14%
Return on capital employed
%
-47% 28% -21% Source: As per injury information submitted by domestic industry, including segregated data for open market submitted in post hearing written submissions.
- It is noted that growth in terms of both volume parameters and price parameters has remained negative in the period of investigation. while the volume parameters in 2022- 23, the parameters have deteriorated in 2023-24 and period of investigation. The profitability parameters showed decline in 2022-23, improvement in 2023-24, and thereafter, showed negative growth in the period of investigation.
vii. Ability to raise capital investment
rofitability parameters showed decline in 2022-23, improvement in 2023-24, and thereafter, showed negative growth in the period of investigation.
vii. Ability to raise capital investment
- The Authority notes that the profitability of the domestic industry has declined significantly and the return on capital employed of the domestic industry has also suffered. Despite duties, the domestic industry has witnessed a deterioration in performance. Thus, the imports have adversely impacted the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment.
viii. Factors affecting domestic prices
- The import price has declined steeply over the injury period. The declining trend in import prices, coupled with increasing volumes, has exerted continuous pressure on domestic prices. The landed price of subject imports is below the selling price as well as cost of sales of the domestic industry. Such low landed price has created a strain on the prices of the domestic industry. This has adversely impacted the profitability of the domestic industry. Thus, price of imports from the subject countries has impacted the prices of the domestic industry.
ix. Magnitude of Dumping and Dumping Margin
- The Authority has examined the magnitude of dumping and dumping margin. It is noted that dumping margin for most producers continues to remain positive and significant, despite the duties in force.
I.4 Conclusion on Injury
- In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes as follows 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
nues to remain positive and significant, despite the duties in force.
I.4 Conclusion on Injury
- In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes as follows 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
70
i.
Despite the anti-dumping duty in force, imports have increased over the injury
period.
ii.
The imports have also shown a significant increase in relative to domestic
production and consumption.
iii.
The imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, both in open
market and on an overall basis.
iv.
The domestic industry has been forced to reduce its prices to a larger degree than
the decline in cost, indicating price depression.
v.
The production, sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have
declined in the period of investigation. The decline in sales outpaces the decline in
demand in the market.
vi.
The domestic industry and domestic producers as a whole have lost market share
to the subject imports.
vii. The domestic industry has witnessed accumulation of inventories over the period.
viii. The profits, cash profits and return on capital employed of the domestic industry
have declined.
ix.
In the open market, the domestic industry has suffered losses during the period of
investigation, and has experienced a negligible return on its capital employed.
x.
industry have declined. ix. In the open market, the domestic industry has suffered losses during the period of investigation, and has experienced a negligible return on its capital employed. x. The subject imports have adversely impacted the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment. xi. The imports are priced below the prices and cost of the domestic industry, and are creating a pressure on the prices of the domestic industry.
- The Authority, therefore, concludes that the domestic industry has continued to suffer injury, despite the anti-dumping duty in force. In view of the present injury faced, the Authority also concludes that injury to the domestic industry is likely, if the anti-dumping duty is withdrawn.
I.5 Likelihood analysis
- The Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping Rules require the Designated Authority to review, from time to time, the need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits positive information substantiating the need for such a review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty. The review inter alia requires an examination whether the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur if the duties are revoked or varied. The Authority has examined whether the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur if the duties are revoked or varied as provided herein below.
a.
are revoked or varied. The Authority has examined whether the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur if the duties are revoked or varied as provided herein below.
a.
Volume and rate of increase in imports
184. As noted above, the imports have increased, inspite of the duties in force. While the
imports have declined in period of investigation, due to a decline in demand; such decline
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
71 is nevertheless less than the decline in demand. On an overall basis, the imports have registered a significant increase, even though the demand has declined. The rate of increase in imports, despite the present duties in imports, indicates that the imports are likely to continue increasing, in the absence of duty.
Particulars
Unit
2021-22
2022-23
2023-24
2024-25
Subject imports
MT
1,12,734
1,39,520
1,90,272
1,66,416
Change versus previous year
%
24% 36% -13% Change versus base year %
48% Demand/Consumption MT 11,57,780 13,55,939 14,16,870 11,31,299 Change versus previous year %
17% 4% -20% Change versus base year %
-2% Demand (open market) MT 3,32,714 3,11,060 3,45,592 2,76,835 Change versus previous year %
-7% 11% -20% Change versus base year %
-17%
b.
Existence of excess production capacities in the subject countries
185.
3,11,060 3,45,592 2,76,835 Change versus previous year %
-7% 11% -20% Change versus base year %
-17%
b.
Existence of excess production capacities in the subject countries
185. The Authority has also examined whether excess production capacities exist in the
subject countries, based on the information provided by the responding producers in the
response. The information provided by the foreign producers in the response for the
period of investigation is summarized below.
Particulars
Unit
Bangladesh
Nepal
Capacities
MT
6,35,996
1,03,355
Production
MT
3,69,137
50,322
Capacity utilization
%
58%
49%
Excess capacities
MT
2,66,859
53,033
- Based on the above, the Authority notes that the foreign producers have reported significantly under-utilized capacities. While the producers in Bangladesh have operated at less than 60% capacity utilization, the capacities in Nepal are utilized only to the extent of 50%. Further, the idle capacities in the subject countries are significant, in relation to the demand in the open market in the country.
c.
Increase in capacities in the subject countries over the period
187. The Authority also notes that the capacities in the subject countries have increased over
the period.
t in the country.
c.
Increase in capacities in the subject countries over the period
187. The Authority also notes that the capacities in the subject countries have increased over
the period. As per the responses filed, the capacities available with producers such as
Ahyan Jute Mills Ltd., Alijan Jute Mills Limited, Arnu Jute Mills Limited, Chuadanga
Jute Mills, Hasan Jute Mills Limited, Hasan Jute & Spinning Mills Limited, Janata Jute
Mills Limited, Mouna Jute Mills Ltd., Nawhata Jute Mills Ltd, Oriental Jute Mills Ltd,
Poddar Agro Industries, Rajbari Jute Mills Limited, Ranu Agro Industries Limited, Sagar
Jute Spinning Mills Ltd, and Sonali Aansh Industries Limited, from Bangladesh have
7/11/2024-DGTR
I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
72 increased over the period. In case of Nepal, the producer, Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills Private Limited, has come up with new capacities. Therefore, the capacities available in the subject countries have increased over the period.
d. Likely suppressing or depressing effect 188. The Authority further notes that the imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. If the anti-dumping duty is removed, the imports shall be priced lower than the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry.
ports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. If the anti-dumping duty is removed, the imports shall be priced lower than the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. In such a situation, the imports are likely to have a suppressing or depressing effect on the prices of the domestic industry, and would force the domestic industry to reduce the prices of the subject goods.
e.
Existing injury faced by the domestic industry
189. As noted hereinabove, the domestic industry has witnessed a decline in its performance
in all material aspects – in both volume and profitability parameters. The domestic
producers have lost a market to the imported goods. The profits and cash profits of the
domestic industry have declined materially over the injury period. The domestic industry
has also faced losses in the open market. Considering the existing deterioration in
performance faced by the domestic industry, while the duties are in force, it can be
concluded that the injury is likely to continue, in the absence of duties.
I.6 Non-attribution analysis (Other factors)
- The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the Anti-Dumping Rules have caused injury to the domestic industry, or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
actors)
- The Authority examined whether other factors listed under the Anti-Dumping Rules have caused injury to the domestic industry, or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. Factors which are relevant in this respect include, inter alia, the volume of subject goods not sold at dumped prices, contraction in demand or changes in the pattern of consumption, trade restrictive practices, changes in technology, the export performance of the domestic industry and the productivity of the domestic industry.
i. Volume and prices of imports from third countries 191. The imports from the subject countries have accounted for the entirety of imports, across the injury period. In view of the absence of imports from other countries, such imports have not caused injury faced by the domestic industry, and are not likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
b. Contraction in demand 192. Demand for the product under consideration has registered a decline over the injury period. Despite such decline, the demand in the country is far higher than the production and capacity of the domestic industry. Further, even though the demand declined, the subject imports did not decline commensurately. The domestic industry has lost market to the imports in the face of declining demand. Moreover, no information has been provided to indicate that the demand is expected to continue declining. The demand had increased till 2023-24, and has only declined during the period of investigation, which 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
d to indicate that the demand is expected to continue declining. The demand had increased till 2023-24, and has only declined during the period of investigation, which 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
73 may be a temporary fluctuation. Therefore, the Authority notes that the contraction in demand is not the cause of the present or likely injury to the domestic industry. However, it is noted that demand continues to remain significant.
c. Changes in pattern of consumption 193. The pattern of consumption with regard to the product under consideration has also not undergone any change. Therefore, the domestic industry has not suffered and is not likely to suffer injury on this account.
d. Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices 194. There are no trade restrictive practices or conditions of competition, which may have caused or are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
e. Developments in technology 195. Technology for production of the product has not undergone any change and no likely change in foreseeable future has been identified by interested parties.
f.
Productivity
196. The productivity per day and per employee of the domestic industry has declined over
the injury period. However, the same is a result of a decline in production over the period.
g. Export performance of the domestic industry 197.
loyee of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period. However, the same is a result of a decline in production over the period.
g. Export performance of the domestic industry 197. The injury information examined hereinabove relates only to the performance of the domestic industry in terms of its domestic market. Thus, the injury suffered or the likely injury cannot be attributed to the export performance of the domestic industry.
h.
Performance of other products
198. The injury cannot be attributed to the performance of other products of the applicant
domestic producers, as the segregated information with regard to the like article only has
been provided on record.
I.7 Causal link between dumping and injury to the domestic industry
- While other known factors listed under the Rules have not caused injury to the domestic industry, the Authority notes that the following parameters show that injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports: i. The dumping of the subject goods and the decline in export price has resulted in an increase in imports in absolute terms and in relation production and consumption. ii. The increase in dumped imports prevented the domestic industry to sell its goods in the market at remunerative prices. iii. As a result, the market share of the domestic industry and domestic producers as a whole declined while that of the imports has increased over the period. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
ices. iii. As a result, the market share of the domestic industry and domestic producers as a whole declined while that of the imports has increased over the period. 7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
74 iv. The domestic industry faced significant accumulation of inventories as it was unable to sell its product in the market. v. The production, sales and capacity utilization of the domestic industry have declined. vi. The imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, and are priced below the cost of sales of the domestic industry. vii. The lower priced imports have caused a strain on the prices of the domestic industry, leading to price depression. viii. This has impacted the profitability of the domestic industry, resulting in a decline in profits, cash profits and return on capital employed.
- The Authority, thus, concludes that there exists a causal relation between the dumping of the subject goods and the material injury to the domestic industry.
J. MAGNITUDE OF INJURY MARGIN
- The Authority has determined the non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of the principles laid down in the Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non-injurious price of the subject goods has been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of investigation.
exure III, as amended. The non-injurious price of the subject goods has been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of investigation. The non-injurious price has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject countries for calculating the injury margin. For determining the non-injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials, the utilities and the production capacity by the domestic industry over the injury period have been considered. It is ensured that no extraordinary or non-recurring expenses were charged to the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on the average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the non-injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules and is being followed.
-
The landed price for the cooperative exporters has been determined on the basis of the data furnished by the exporters. For non-sampled cooperative exporters, landed value has been taken as the weighted average landed value of the co-operative producers/exporters.
-
For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from the subject countries, the Authority has determined the landed price based on facts available.
co-operative producers/exporters.
-
For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from the subject countries, the Authority has determined the landed price based on facts available.
-
Based on the landed price and non-injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in the table below:
7/11/2024-DGTR I/131904/2026
Non-Confidential
(CASE No. AD (MTR)-02/20 Final Findings- Jute Product
75 SN Particulars Volume Exported Non- Injurious Price Landed Price Injury Margin Injury Margin Injury Margin
MT USD/MT USD/MT USD/MT % Range A Bangladesh 1 A. M. Jute Industries Limited
a Jute Yarn
65-75% b Hessian
25-35% c Weighted average
60-70% 2 Asha Jute Industries Limited
a Jute Yarn
90-100% b Sacking Bag / Cloth
20-30% c Weighted averag
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
Mid Term Review investigation concerning imports of “Jute Products”
No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 28201 --apply.