Trade committee adds a polyester-spandex double weave to the CAFTA-DR short supply list over a supplier's response

A request filed on May 11, 2026 closed on July 14 with a finding of absence. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements determined that a double weave polyester/spandex fabric is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries, and added it to the list in Annex 3.25 of the agreement in unrestricted quantities. The determination is signed by Joshua Kroon, Chairman, and its case file sits under Approved Requests, File Number CA2026002.

The fabric is described by test method rather than by product. Fiber content, measured to AATCC 20A, runs 88-92 percent polyester and 8-12 percent spandex. The construction is woven, double weave dobby, with four-way stretch. The finish is quick dry, wicking, tested to AATCC 197. Weight, by ASTM D3776, is 159-169 grams per square metre. Two tariff lines carry it: 5407.52.20.40 and 5407.72.00.15. What the determination does not record is what the fabric becomes. No garment, no brand and no order appears anywhere in the text; the document stops at the specification and the tariff line.

A listing of this kind is administrative housekeeping until it is set beside what the U.S. textile industry has said the listing process is for. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) published the text of a letter which its posting describes as sent by a bipartisan group of 38 lawmakers to the Secretary of Commerce - a description that does not appear in the letter text itself. In that text the members wrote: "We strongly urge you to continue following the longstanding CAFTA-DR short supply list process, which requires requestors to submit public petitions for review, and reject requests to circumvent it." The stated fear is displacement: "We fear that the People's Republic of China (PRC), as the dominant global supplier of yarns and fabrics, would be the major winner under this proposal."

A second NCTO release, summarising an independent study, puts the argument in economic terms. The report found that "weakening the rules by adding 'flexibilities' such as cumulation and short supply changes would exacerbate the migration crisis by devastating our industries and further tether us to our counterparts in Asia, including China." The same release states: "We appreciate the broad bipartisan support, including from the administration, for maintaining the essential yarn forward rule of origin and ensuring those rules are not eroded through harmful changes."

Neither NCTO item carries a date in the material available for this piece, and neither mentions this fabric, this requester or this proceeding. What they state is a position about machinery: petitions filed in public, reviewed on a record. The July 14 determination is a record of that machinery running to the end.

The procedure is set out step by step in the document. CITA received the commercial availability request from VARSITY PRO LTDA DE C.V. on May 11, 2026, and on May 13 notified interested parties and posted the request on the dedicated website for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings. Responses with an offer to supply were due May 26; rebuttals were due June 1. Summitex Woven Textiles filed a response on May 26. Varsity filed a rebuttal to that response on June 1. No further filing appears in the document.

What followed was more process, not less. Because there was insufficient information on the record to decide within 30 business days, CITA extended its deadline by 14 U.S. business days. It then called a public meeting on June 11, 2026 with representatives of Varsity and Summitex, convened - the document states - so the two companies could submit additional evidence on Summitex's capability to supply the product in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

The finding ran against the objector. The determination records that Varsity had made significant efforts to source the fabric within the region, and specifically from Summitex, and then states: "Summitex has not demonstrated its ability to supply the subject product in commercial quantities in a timely manner." On that basis - "no interested entity has substantiated its ability to supply the subject product in commercial quantities in a timely manner" - the fabric went onto the list, and a revised Annex 3.25 was posted at the Office of Textiles and Apparel's public site.

The list itself is defined in the document: Annex 3.25 holds fabrics, yarns and fibers that the CAFTA-DR parties have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The opening Summitex used is statutory. The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request, and to provide interested entities an opportunity to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made.

Thirty-three days before the applicable date, a separate CITA determination dated June 11, 2026 added a different fabric to the same annex on an entirely different record. In that case, the document reports, "No interested entity submitted a complete Response to the Request advising CITA of its objection", and CITA determined to add the specified fabric to the list.

Set the two side by side and the contrast is the story. Read as analysis: in June the list grew because nobody objected; in July it grew although somebody did. A response was available and one was filed. The objection drew a rebuttal. An extension was taken and a meeting was held. Measured against the industry's own description of what the process requires - public petitions submitted for review - this is the process working as described, and it still ended with a fabric moving onto the list with no quantity limit. The safeguard and the listing are the same machine; running it to the letter is not the same thing as producing a regional supplier.

Two things are checkable from here. The revised Annex 3.25 list is posted on the Office of Textiles and Apparel's commercial availability site, and the case file for this proceeding sits at the same site under Approved Requests, File Number CA2026002. On the strength of a determination that states the addition is unrestricted, this piece expects that on December 31, 2026 the CAFTA-DR short supply list at that address will still carry the 88-92 percent polyester, 8-12 percent spandex double weave with no quantity limitation attached. If it carries a cap by then, or has dropped the fabric, the determination will have been revisited - and that revision is the next document worth reading.