DGTR Recommends Anti-Subsidy Duty on Jute Products from Bangladesh and Nepal

Ø Anti-Dumping Already Applicable but Anti Subsidy will be Netted Against ADD

[DGTR Final Findings— Case No. CVD (OI)-04/2025 dated 28 September 2026]

1. Investigation: DGTR conducted a countervailing duty investigation into imports of jute products originating in or exported from Bangladesh and Nepal, following an application by the Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA) and A.P. Mesta Twine Mills Association (AJMA).

2. Period of Investigation: April 2024–March 2025; injury analysis covered 2021-22 to the POI.

3. Product scope: Covers jute yarn/twine, jute sacking bags and cloth, and jute hessian bags and fabrics, including oil-treated and specified diversified jute products. Excludes blankets, decorative fabrics, floor coverings, hand/shopping bags, handicrafts, carpet backing cloth, geo-textiles and gift/novelty items.

4. Customs headings: The goods are principally classifiable under 5307, 5310 and 6305, with jute twine also under 5607. Classification is indicative and does not restrict the scope of the investigation.

5. Domestic industry standing: The applicant producers represented 26.03% of total Indian production during the POI, while applicant and supporting producers together represented about 43%. DGTR held that the standing requirement was satisfied.

6. Subsidies found for Bangladesh:

o Programme 8: Cash incentive on exports of jute goods — treated as a prohibited export subsidy.

o Programme 10: Preferential income-tax treatment for the jute industry.

o No benefit was established for Programmes 1–7, 9, 11 and 12 for the sampled exporters.

7. Subsidies found for Nepal:

o Programme 1: Cash grants on export of jute products — prohibited export subsidy.

o Programme 2: Tax subsidies for jute industries.

8. Subsidy margins: All sampled, non-sampled cooperating and other producers/exporters had subsidy margins above the applicable de-minimis level. Bangladesh sampled groups were in the 10–25% range, while Nepalese groups were in the 0–10% range.

9. Material injury: DGTR found that subsidised imports increased in absolute terms and relative to Indian production and consumption, caused price undercutting, price suppression/depression, and contributed to declines in production, capacity utilisation, domestic sales, market share, profits, cash profits and ROCE.

10. Causal link: DGTR concluded that the material injury to the domestic industry was caused by the subsidised imports from Bangladesh and Nepal. Other known factors examined were not found to have caused the injury.

11. Anti-dumping duty already applicable: Jute products from the subject countries are already subject to anti-dumping duty. DGTR therefore addressed the potential double-remedy issue separately.

12. Double-remedy mechanism: The anti-dumping duty will continue to be collected in full. The export-subsidy component of CVD will be collected only to the extent it exceeds the applicable anti-dumping duty on the same consignment; the tax-concession component will be collected in full.

13. Recommended duration: Definitive CVD is recommended for 5 years from the date of notification by the Central Government. It is proposed as a fixed US$/MT amount, producer/exporter-wise.

Recommended CVD — Key Rates

Country / Producer	Export Subsidy Component (US$/MT)	Tax Concession Component (US$/MT)	Total CVD (US$/MT)
Hasan Jute Mills Ltd.	92.10	40.26	132.36
Hasan Jute & Spinning Mills Ltd.	92.10	40.26	132.36
Janata Jute Mills Ltd.	99.78	4.42	104.20
Sadat Jute Industries Ltd.	99.78	4.42	104.20
Sagar Jute Spinning Mills Ltd.	99.51	2.03	101.54
Oriental Jute Mills Ltd.	99.51	2.03	101.54
Non-sampled cooperating Bangladesh exporters*	96.23	20.25	116.48
Other Bangladesh producers/exporters	99.78	40.26	140.04
Arihant Multi-Fibres Ltd.	57.24	1.72	58.96
Shree Raghupati Jute Mills Ltd.	57.24	1.72	58.96
Swastik Jute Mills (P) Ltd.	54.55	0.22	54.77
Baba Jute Mills / Shree Pashupatinath Jute Mills	56.91	1.59	58.50
Other Nepal producers/exporters	57.24	3.30	60.54

*Rates are subject to the specific producer/exporter conditions in the duty table.

14. Commercial invoice condition: Producer-specific CVD rates apply only where the importer produces a valid commercial invoice containing a signed declaration from an authorised officer certifying that the goods were produced by the producer named in the duty table. Otherwise, the rate applicable to the other producer/exporter of that country applies.

15. Final recommendation: DGTR, applying the lesser duty rule, found that injury margins were higher than the corresponding subsidy margins and therefore recommended CVD equal to the subsidy margins, subject to the anti-dumping/CVD adjustment mechanism described above.

16. Effect of the Final Findings: The findings recommend, but do not themselves impose, definitive CVD. The Central Government would need to issue the relevant notification for the duty to take effect. An appeal against the Central Government's order lies before CESTAT under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.