The domestic synthetic-fibre industry in India is facing a stealthy cost disadvantage: according to a recent report, India’s polyester staple fibre (PSF) is around 35 % costlier than that in China. Fibre2Fashion

The Price Gap

In October 2025, Indian PSF averaged at a price that worked out to about 35 % above China’s benchmark. Fibre2Fashion While the exact numbers weren’t publicly detailed, the gap underlines a structural challenge for India’s downstream textile and apparel businesses.

What’s Causing It? The QCO and BIS Certification

Industry experts point to the Quality Control Order (QCO) imposed by the government for polyester and related synthetic inputs as a major factor. Under the QCO, foreign suppliers of raw materials (such as PSF) must obtain certification from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) if they want to sell into the Indian market. The Indian Express+2Shankar IAS Parliament+2

While the rationale is legitimate — ensuring quality and protecting domestic industry — practically it has created what many downstream players call a non-tariff barrier. Because few overseas PSF manufacturers have managed to secure BIS licence, imports have been constrained, limiting competitive sourcing and pushing Indian producers to set prices significantly higher. The Indian Express+1

Consequences for Indian Industry

• Higher input costs: Downstream synthetic textile makers report that raw materials like PSF and viscose staple fibre (VSF) are “at least 20 % more expensive in India than anywhere else in the world”. The Indian Express+1

• Reduced competitiveness: Exporters of MMF (man-made fibre) goods say their ability to compete globally is suffering because the first link in the value chain is cost-disadvantaged. The Indian Express

• Import decline and domestic supply pressure: With import access restricted, downstream units must rely on domestic suppliers, which may have less incentive to reduce prices or innovate.

• Policy loosenings already visible: Recognising the pain, the government in June 2024 relaxed the import rule for PSF and spun yarns under the advance authorisation scheme, permitting import of raw material for export-oriented units without full BIS certification. ICIS Explore

Why the Price Gap Persists

• Domestic price declines have not kept pace with global drops. The report noted that while China’s PSF prices fell significantly in recent months, India’s have only eased modestly. Fibre2Fashion+1

• With limited competition from imports, domestic producers have less pressure to drop prices.

• The BIS- certification process is time-consuming and costly for foreign manufacturers, making import participation harder. Shankar IAS Parliament+1

What Needs to Happen

• Streamline and expedite BIS certification for overseas PSF suppliers to open import competition.

• Review whether raw-material QCOs are serving the intended purpose of quality control without unduly harming competitiveness — perhaps calibrating them for speciality fibres vs broad inputs.

• Encourage domestic producers to lower their cost base via scale, integration, improved efficiency — so they can close the gap.

• Improve transparency in pricing and segmentation so downstream users can benchmark and negotiate better.

Implications for Export-Oriented India

For India’s textile & apparel export ambition, the elevated cost of raw materials like PSF means margins are squeezed, pricing flexibility is reduced, and global competitiveness is compromised. Unless the gap narrows, India risks losing out to regions where synthetic fibre input costs are lower.

Conclusion

The finding that Indian polyester staple fibre is roughly 35 % costlier than China’s is not just a statistic — it flags a competitive disadvantage built into the fabric value chain. The QCO-BIS mechanism, though well-intentioned for quality control, is functioning effectively as a non-tariff barrier that restricts import competition and lets domestic raw-material prices remain elevated. For India to enhance its global textile leadership and enable its export-oriented downstream units to thrive, policy recalibration, faster certification processes, increased import access and domestic cost optimisation must align swiftly. Only then can input cost parity begin to match global benchmarks, thereby lifting competitiveness.

Reference link

• Link to the original report: Fibre2Fashion article (“QCO makes Indian polyester fibre 35% costlier than China”) Fibre2Fashion

• Link to BIS standard specification for PSF (IS 17263:2019) that underlies the QCO regime. Aleph INDIA®

• Link to articles on downstream industry complaints about QCOs impacting supply chain & costs (Indian Express / Indian Textile Journal). The Indian Express+1

• Link to the June 2024 import-rule relaxation article (ICIS). ICIS Explore