In January 1998, the EU slapped provisional duty of 82 per cent on synthetic ropes exported from India based on the representation by some synthetic rope manufacturers from Portugal. However, Garware Wall Ropes was considered a point case and was levied 53 per cent while it was fixed at 82 per cent for all Indian synthetic ropes exporters. The EU has retained the same duty structure finally i.e 53 per cent for Garware Wall Ropes and 82 per cent for all other Indian rope exporters. This is because Garware cooperated by furnishing the requisite data. Based on this record, the EU computed actual effect which worked out to be 53 per cent of duty.

The anti-dumping duty has two aspects - one is basic duty and other is based on actual injury. The basic duty is 82 per cent for all synthetic ropes exported from India but is53 per cent based on injury caused by the exports of these by Garware Wall Ropes. Obviously, Garware will be subjected to the lower of the two i.e at 53 per cent.

Why would other rope exporters pay higher? It is believed that all other manufacturers did not participate in the anti-dumping investigations by the EU. Hence, they were slapped anti-dumping duty based on constructed value. Some of the other synthetic rope exporters are Krishna Filaments and Tuff Ropes. It is very expensive and time consuming to fight anti-dumping cases in the European courts. e.g Garware Wall Ropes incurred about $40000 to $50000 including $30000 lawyers' fee alone. Most of the Indian exporters find it unaffordable or consider it waste of money. Instead they would simply stop exporting to these European countries and search newer markets. Perhaps they are right.

Consider this. After spending about Rs 16-20 lakh on this case, Garware Wall Ropes finds exports of these ropes to Europe uncompetitive not only at 82 per cent but evenat 53 per cent. The company had begun to look at other markets right since November last when the EU slapped the provisional anti-dumping duty. Fortunately, USA removed quota for synthetic ropes in January this year and by now the company could divert its anti-dumping duty affected exports to USA and some south American countries where it earlier used to export. So even after fighting out the anti-dumping case, if the exports need to be diverted, then exporters might as well do so without wasting money and time for fighting out the case abroad.

Garware Wall Ropes exports around 1100 tonnes of synthetic ropes out of which about 500-600 tonnes are shipping ropes to Europe but these do not enter the country. These shipping ropes are stored in the customs bonded area from where they are delivered to the customers i.e ships. So this export is not affected. Another around 100 tonnes are exported to Norway which is not part of EU. So the balance 500 tonnes were affected by the anti-dumping duty i.e some 40 tonnesper month. Garware has strategically started looking for other market on a weekly basis. The company sources claim that the exports have in fact gone up but to different destination now.

Garware Wall Ropes is also planning to take up the issue with the Indian government requesting to follow up the WTO route to bring justice to the synthetic rope industry because on merit, India should not have been subjected to this duty in the first place.