Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-08052024-254066
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 121] NEW DELHI, WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2024/VAISAKHA 11, 1946
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 29th April, 2024
Case No - SG (QR) - 04/2023
FINAL FINDING
Subject: Safeguard (Quantitative Restrictions) investigation concerning imports of Low Ash Metallurgical
Coke into India.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
F. No. 22/4/2023-DGTR.—1. An application dated 04th April 2023 was filed before the Authorized
Officer under Section 9A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter also
referred to the “Act”) read with the Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter
also referred to as the “Quantitative Restrictions Rules” or the “Rules”) by BLA Coke Private Ltd., Jindal Coke
Ltd., Saurashtra Fuels Private Ltd., Vedanta Malco Energy Ltd. and VISA Coke Ltd. (hereinafter also referred
to as the “applicants” or the “domestic industry””) seeking imposition of safeguard measures in the form of
quantitative restrictions on imports of “Low Ash Metallurgical Coke” (hereinafter also referred to as the
“product under consideration” or “PUC” or “subject goods” or “Met Coke”) into India.
2. The applicants have alleged that the product under consideration is being imported into India in such increased
quantities and under such conditions as to cause injury to the domestic industry that is producing like or directly
competitive goods in India. For this reason, the applicants had requested for imposition of Safeguard
(Quantitative Restrictions) as a measure to mitigate its injury, for a period of one year.
3. In view of the duly substantiated petition filed by the applicants and sufficient prima facie evidence submitted
regarding recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports of the subject goods and consequent serious
injury to the domestic industry, a safeguard investigation against imports of the product under consideration into
India under the provisions of Section 9A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule
5 of the Quantitative Restrictions Rules, for examining the need for imposition of safeguard measures in the form
of quantitative restrictions, was initiated vide Notification No 22/4/2023-DGTR dated 30th June 2023.
B. PROCEDURE
4. In accordance with sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, a copy of the initiation notification dated
30th June 2023 and a copy of a non-confidential version (NCV) of the application filed by the applicants were
forwarded to the Central Government in the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the Governments of major
exporting countries through their embassies in India, and the interested parties mentioned in the said
application.
5. A questionnaire to be answered by the exporters / importers / domestic producers as prescribed under Rule 6(4)
of the said Rules, was forwarded to the known interested parties with a request to make their views known in
writing within 30 days from the date of issue of the Notice of Initiation.
6. In response to the Notification of Initiation the following interested parties filed a response to the exporters’
questionnaire:
i. Balta GmBH
ii. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd.
iii. Cheongfuli (Xiamen) Co. Ltd.
iv. China National Minerals Co. Ltd.
v. PT. Detian Coking Indonesia
vi. PT. Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia
vii. PT. Kinxiang New Energy Technologies Indonesia
viii. PT. Risun Wei Shan Indonesia
ix. Qingdao Sion Coke Rich International Trade Co. Ltd.
x. Risun Marketing Ltd.
xi. Sinochem International Corporation
xii. Union Yiwua International Trade Co., Ltd.
xiii. Xiamen Guqiying Supply Chain Co., Ltd.
xiv. Xiamen ITG Dynamic Co., Ltd
7. In response to the Notification of Initiation the following interested parties filed response to users’ / importers’
questionnaire:
i. Orissa Metaliks Private Ltd.
ii. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.
iii. Tata Steel Ltd.
iv. Tata Steel Mining Ltd.
v. Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
vi. Mukand Ltd
vii. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.
viii. Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Ltd.
ix. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.
x. Narsingh Ispat Ltd.
xi. Neo Metaliks Ltd.
xii. SMC Power Generation Ltd.
xiii. Sree Metaliks Ltd.
xiv. Swati Concast and Power Private Ltd.
8. In response to the Notification of Initiation the following interested parties filed submissions:
i. Alloy Steel Producers Association of India (ASPA)
ii. Balta GmBH
iii. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
iv. China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers and Exporters
v. Government of Indonesia
vi. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.
vii. Mukand Ltd.
viii. Orissa Metaliks Private Ltd.
ix. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd
x. Tata Steel Ltd &. Tata Steel Mining Ltd.
9. In response to the Notification of Initiation the following interested parties filed response to economic interest
questionnaire:
i. Domestic industry
ii. Narayani Coke Private Ltd.
iii. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.
iv. Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Ltd.
v. Balta GmBH
vi. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
vii. Cheongfuli (Xiamen) Co. Ltd.
viii. China National Minerals Co. Ltd.
ix. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd.
x. Narsingh Ispat Ltd.
xi. Neo Metaliks Ltd.
xii. Qingdao Sion Coke Rich International Trade Co. Ltd.
xiii. Risun Marketing Ltd.
xiv. Sinochem International Corporation
xv. SMC Power Generation Ltd.
xvi. Sree Metaliks Ltd.
xvii. Swati Concast and Power Private Ltd.
xviii. The Indian Ferro Alloy Producers’ Association (IFAPA)
xix. Union Yiwua International Trade Co., Ltd.
xx. Xiamen Guqiying Supply Chain Co., Ltd.
xxi. Xiamen ITG Dynamic Co., Ltd
10. The Authorized Officer has considered the most recent period as 1st April 2022 – 31st March 2023 and the
period of investigation as 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2023.
11. A list of interested parties was published on the DGTR website to enable access of all non-confidential version
(NCV) submissions made by all interested parties. All interested parties were advised to exchange the non confidential version of their submissions with each other through email.
12. In accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Rules, the Authorized Officer provided an opportunity to the interested
parties to present their views orally in a public hearing held on 17th January 2024 in hybrid mode i.e. both
virtual and physical. The parties which wished to join online participated through Digital Video Conferencing.
All the interested parties who participated in the oral hearing were requested to file written submission of the
views presented orally. Interested parties were also given an opportunity to file rejoinders, if any, to the written
submissions of other interested parties. The following interested parties had filed written submissions and
rejoinder submissions post the oral hearing.
i. Domestic industry
ii. Alloy Steel Producers Association
iii. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel Ltd.
iv. Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Ltd.
v. Balta GmBH
vi. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd.
vii. China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters
viii. European Commission
ix. Government of Indonesia
x. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd
xi. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd.
xii. Mukand Ltd.
xiii. Narsingh Ispat Ltd.
xiv. Neo Metaliks Ltd.
xv. Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd.
xvi. PT. Detian Coking Indonesia
xvii. PT. Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia
xviii. PT. Kinxiang New Energy Technologies Indonesia
xix. PT. Risun Wei Shan Indonesia
xx. Russian Federation
xxi. SMC Power Generation Ltd.
xxii. Sree Metaliks Ltd.
xxiii. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
xxiv. Swati Concast and Power Private Ltd.
xxv. Tata Steel Ltd.
xxvi. Tata Steel Mining Ltd.
13. The submissions made by all interested parties pursuant to the oral hearing or otherwise, to the extent the same
are substantiated with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately
considered by the Authorized Officer in this disclosure statement.
14. The Authorized Officer, 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 this disclosure statement to the extent
possible and verified the data/ documents submitted by the domestic industry to the extent considered relevant,
practicable and necessary.
15. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to the
sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authorized Officer has accepted the
confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered as confidential and not
disclosed to 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.
16. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during
the course of the investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authorized Officer
considered such interested parties as non-cooperative and recorded this disclosure statement on the basis of the
facts available.
17. Request was made to the Director General (Systems) to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the
subject goods for the period of investigation.
18. *** in this final findings represents information furnished by an interested party on confidential basis, and so
considered by the Authorized Officer under the Rules.
19. The exchange rate adopted by the Authorized Officer for the subject investigation is 1US$ = ₹ 81.06.
C. SCOPE OF PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
C1. SUBMISSIONS BY THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
20. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regards to product under consideration
and like article.
a. Since domestic industry is unable to produce Low Ash Metallurgical Coke with phosphorous content upto
to 0.030% and size upto 30 mm with oversize limited to 5%, it should be excluded from the scope of the
PUC. The exclusion was agreed by the domestic industry during the oral hearing.
b. Ultra-Low Phos. Coke (ULP) [Phos: ≤ 0.007%, S:0.65%, FC:84-86%, 10-30mm]; Ultra Ultra Low Phos.
Coke (UULP), [Phos: ≤ 0.005%, S:0.65%, FC:84-86%, 10-30 mm]; Ultra Low Phos. Coke Fines (ULPC)
[Phos: ≤ 0.007%, S:0.65%, FC:85-89%, 0-6mm] should be excluded.
c. While the applicants agreed on exclusion of low phos coke having phosphorus content less than 0.03 and
particle size upto 30 mm during the oral hearing, the condition of particle size upto 30 mm is not relevant
and should not be considered.
d. Met coke with size upto 40 mm with 5% tolerance should be excluded as it is not available in abundant
quantities domestically. Since only this size can be used in mini-blast furnaces and limited volume is
imported, quantitative restrictions will have an adverse impact on the pig iron manufacturers as they will
be forced to break bigger size coke to smaller sizes leading to increase in cost.
e. The domestic industry is not involved in production of coke fines / coke breeze. Coke fines supplied by
the domestic industry have high ash and volatile matter content. The related party of one of the applicants
itself imports coke fines to supply to the other interested parties. Thus, such coke fines with low ash
content should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as agreed by the domestic
industry during the oral hearing.
f. The met coke supplied by the Indian industry is of inferior quality as compared to imported coke. The
domestic coke contains higher moisture leading to higher fuel demand, has lower coke strength after
reduction and higher coke reactivity index, mean particle size is on lower side and the -30 mm and -25
mm fractions are on higher side, size of domestic coke was below norms set by Arcelormittal Nippon
Steel India Limited. Using sub-standard quality of met coke in the production process results in reduced
hot metal production. There are other safety concerns as well including taphole choking, coke rush,
personnel safety, equipment damage, operational disruptions etc.
g. Considering of HS code 2704 for analysis of met coke import is not appropriate as it consists of various
types of coal and the product under consideration is classified only under 2704 00 30.
h. HS code 2704 does not indicate the ash content. In India coke with low ash content contains ash up to
11%, with middle ash content contains up to 18% and with high ash content contains upto 25%. Since
coke with up to 14% ash content can be used in blast furnaces. It seems that the applicants have
incorrectly used customs data on 4-digit code to include all types of coke.
C2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
21. The submissions of the domestic industry with regard to the product under consideration and like article are
as follows:
a. The product under consideration in the present investigation is Low Ash Metallurgical Coke having ash
content below 18%. In order to produce met coke with low ash content, the only requirement is low ash
coking coal.
b. The product under consideration is imported under various names such as coke, nut coke, semi-coke of
coal, BF coke, foundry coke, coke breeze, metallurgical breeze coke, coke fines, coke dust, coke ash
powder, coke powder and carbon coque / coque.
c. The products imported under the names carboflux, carbon block, carbon anode butts, carbon raiser,
carbon raised, bags, semi coke of lignite or peat, lignite special coke, non-activated charcoal, carbolux,
CTF065 SASCARB are not a part of the product under consideration.
d. The domestic industry has not manufactured ultra-low phos metallurgical coke with phosphorous content
below 0.03% and size below 30 mm for use in ferroalloy applications due to economic unviability and
such product may be excluded from application of quota when the importers show the use of said product
for manufacturing of ferroalloys.
e. Coke breeze / fines are not produced by any manufacture globally but is a by product generated while
producing coke. Since the domestic industry has not produced low-ash coke breeze / fines, the same may
be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
f. As opposed to the contentions of the other interested parties, quality cannot be the reason for surge in
imports. Further, in case the imports were of superior quality the prices of the product would have been
higher.
g. With regard to the submissions on exclusion of met coke with size upto 40 mm, the said product is being
produced by the Indian industry and does not call for exclusion.
h. For the purposes of the present investigation, the HS classification is only indicative in nature, as has been
provided in the initiation notification. The information submitted is relevant only to the product under
consideration and the application has in no manner reported any statistic on an article which is not
representative of the product under consideration.
i. Met coke is classified under the HS Code 2704 0030. However, it is also being imported under HS Codes
2704 0010, 2704 0020, 2704 0030 and 2704 0090. Accordingly, HS Code 2704 may be considered for
notification of measures.
j. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, only transactions pertaining to low ash
metallurgical coke with ash content below 18% have been considered for determination of increase in
imports, and injury to the domestic industry.
C3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
22. The product under consideration for the purpose of the present investigation is Low Ash Metallurgical Coke,
that is, Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18%. The product is commonly known as Met Coke or
Coke in the market parlance. Metallurgical Coke with high ash content, that is, ash content above 18% is
outside the scope of the product under consideration.
23. The other interested parties have requested exclusion of ultra-low phosphorous low ash metallurgical coke with
low phosphorous content upto 0.030% and size below 30 mm. The domestic industry has submitted that the
production of such product does not need any new equipment or plant; and requires only a specific type of
coking coal. The domestic industry has however accepted exclusion of metallurgical coke with low
phosphorous content upto 0.030% and size upto 30 mm with oversize tolerance of 5%. The Authorized Officer
notes that the domestic industry has not manufactured the said product stating commercial unviability of the
same. Such product is used for manufacturing of ferroalloys. Hence, the Authorized Officer proposes to hold
that ultra-low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content below 0.03% and size upto 30 mm
with oversize tolerance of 5% will not be subject to any quantitative restrictions.
24. With regard to the coke fine / coke breeze, the Authorized Officer notes that the domestic industry has agreed
for exclusion of low ash coke fines / coke breeze, as the same is not produced by it. Accordingly, the
Authorized Officer proposes to hold that the scope of product under consideration does not include low-ash
coke fines / coke breeze, that is, coke fines / coke breeze with ash content of upto 18%.
25. The other interested parties have submitted that met coke with size upto 40 mm should be excluded from the
scope of product under consideration. The Authorized Officer notes that the other interested parties have
themselves stated that the said product is available in India and is being supplied by the domestic industry. The
other interested parties have not substantiated their claims with regards to availability of such product in
limited quantities. Accordingly, it is considered that the need for exclusion of the met coke with size upto 40
mm has not been substantiated.
26. With regard to the submissions of the other interested parties regarding the HS Codes, it is noted that the
product under consideration is being imported under various HS Codes. The import data under 4-digit level at
2704 pertaining to metallurgical coke has been segregated on the basis of description of the product as ‘low ash
Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18%’ at 8-digit level.
27. The other interested parties have submitted that the quality of the product supplied by the domestic industry is
inferior. The Authorized Officer notes that the other interested parties have not substantiated their claims by
providing evidence for the same. Further, in case of superior quality product, a producer usually charges a
premium as the users will not switch to an inferior quality product due to pricing policy. In the present case, the
imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry and hence, the submissions with regard to superior
quality of imports is not justified.
28. It is also noted that in past anti-dumping investigations pertaining to the product, the Authorised Officer had
found that the domestic industry was producing like article to the imported product. In a safeguard
investigation, it is required to be examined whether the domestic industry has produced like or directly
competitive product, to the imported goods. No evidence has been placed by the interested parties to displace
or dispute the conclusions reached in the past investigations. Further, no party has claimed that the goods
produced by the domestic industry are not, competing with the imported products. Therefore, the Authorized
Officer finds that the information on record does not indicate a difference in quality of the products.
29. On the basis of the information on record the following is the product under consideration for the present
investigation
“Low Ash Metallurgical Coke, that is, Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18% excluding coke
fines / coke breeze and ultra-low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content up to 0.030%
with size of 30 mm with 5% size tolerance for use in ferroalloy manufacturing”
There is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and those imported into
India. They are comparable in terms of physical characteristics, manufacturing process, functions and uses,
product specifications, distribution and marketing, and tariff classifications of the goods. The goods produced
by the domestic industry are also technically and commercially comparable to the product being imported. The
consumers have used and are using the two interchangeably. The Authorised Officer proposes to hold that the
product manufactured by the applicants constitutes like goods to the subject goods being imported into India in
terms of Rule 2(e) of the Rules.
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
D1. SUBMISSIONS BY THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
30. The following submissions were made by the other interested parties with regards to domestic industry and
standing:
a. In a safeguard investigation, the only condition for constitution of domestic industry is a major share in
total production. There are no exclusions to be considered as that in an anti-dumping investigation. The
Authorised Officer, in the safeguard investigation into imports of Isopropyl Alcohol held that there is no
exclusion of a producer who imports the subject goods.
b. The Authorised Officer may re-examine the standing in the present case after including the producers that
manufacture the subject goods as an intermediate product.
c. In order to determine standing, the production of all entities producing met coke, regardless of captive or
merchant market, should be considered. The Appellate Body in US – Cotton Yarn held that while
determining the major share of domestic production, captive consumers cannot be excluded. The captive
producers import 73% of coking coal in India and produce majority of the product under consideration.
d. Captive consumers of the product cannot be excluded for determination of total production of met coke in
India. The applicants have relied upon the decision of the Authorised Officer and CESTAT decision in the
anti-dumping investigation on imports of met coke. The definition of domestic industry under Safeguard
Rules does not allow for consideration of two or more competitive markets where producers could be
considered as separate industry, as opposed to the definition under the Anti-Dumping Rules.
e. While the applicants have claimed that the captive producers do not mention met coke as a product on
their website, RINL and Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. have mentioned the product on their website.
Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. and Bengal Energy Ltd. is engaged in sales of met coke in merchant market as
evident from the final findings issued by the Authorised Officer in anti-dumping investigation on imports
of met coke from Australia and China. In case, production of such producers is added to total domestic
production, the share of applicants will be even lower.
f. A share of 33.46% cannot be considered as a major share in the total domestic production. The present
industry is not a fragmented industry as evident from the fact that the applicants have provided a list of all
domestic producers. A low share in domestic production will not permit representative and objective
examination of serious injury to the domestic industry.
g. The applicants have not provided information regarding their share in total domestic production during
April 2019 – March 2023. Standing should be determined based on the share in production during the
complete injury period.
h. The share in domestic production of applicants in the anti-dumping investigation was higher than that in
the present investigation. Further, the applicants in the anti-dumping investigation, are still operational
(barring Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd) but have not participated in the present investigation. Since the
information required in a safeguard investigation is less burdensome, it is not clear why other producers
have not provided the information.
i. In Argentina – Poultry, the Panel held that major means important, serious, or significant and the
domestic industry refers to domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50% of
domestic production. In EC-Fasteners (China), the Appellate Body held that a proportion of 36% of total
domestic production is low, even in the context of the fragmented fasteners industry. In EC Steel
Fasteners, the Appellate Body held that a major proportion should be understood as a relatively high
proportion of the total domestic production. In the present investigation major share implies more than
51% of total domestic production, however, the applicants hold only 33.63% of the total domestic
production.
j. In more than 35 safeguard investigations conducted by the Authorised Officer, the Authorised Officer has
held major share as constituting more than 50% of total production. As per para 4.9.2 of the Manual of
Operating Practices, total domestic production should consist of entire production in India including
production for domestic sales, exports as well as captive consumption. In anti-dumping investigation into
imports of O-Acid, the Authorised Officer held that absence of actual merchant sales in the period of
investigation should not deprive the company from being treated as domestic industry.
k. While the applicants have identified supporters, there is no concept of supporters in a safeguard
investigation. Thus, production of such producers cannot be considered for the purpose of determining
standing.
l. Supporters have not provided their data. The Authorised Officer must conduct a further examination into
the state of performance of the additional producers and Indian industry as a whole. This is necessary
since the sales of other domestic producers is higher than the sales of the domestic industry.
m. The supporters have not provided information as per Trade Notice No. 13/2018.
n. The applicants have admitted that the information regarding total domestic production is estimated,
however, the basis of such estimation has not been provided.
D2. SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
31. Following submissions have been made by the applicants with regard to the domestic industry and standing:
a. The petition has been filed by BLA Coke Private Ltd., Jindal Coke Ltd., Saurashtra Fuels Private Ltd.,
Vedanta Malco Energy Ltd., and VISA Coke Ltd.
b. The petition has been supported by Bhatia Coke and Energy Ltd., Krishna Coke India Private Ltd.,
Mothersons Consolidate, M V International Ltd., Nilachal Carbo Metalicks Private Ltd., Tirupati Traders,
Coromandel Met Coke Industries and Narayani Coke Private Ltd.
c. The applicants constitute 39% of Indian merchant production. Along with the supporters, the applicants
account for 49% of the total production in India.
d. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, Trade Notice 13/2018 is not applicable to
safeguard investigations.
e. As opposed to the contentions of the other interested parties, the WTO Panel in Argentina – Poultry held
that there is no need for the Members to define domestic industry as producers pertaining to more than
50% of domestic production. Appellate Body in EC-Fasteners (China) dealt with self-selection of
producers.
f. While the other interested parties have submitted that the scope of domestic industry in an anti-dumping
investigation was larger, there is no requirement for the constitution of domestic industry to remain the
same in a safeguard investigation.
g. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, the domestic industry has provided its
production during the period of investigation as well total Indian production.
h. While production of Tata Steel Ltd. and members of Dhanbad association were considered for the
purpose of standing while filing the petition, these should not be considered as Tata Steel produces for
captive consumption and members of Dhanbad Association produce NPUC.
i. As opposed to the submissions of other interested parties, production of Bengal Energy Ltd. and
Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. to the tune of that for the merchant market have been considered in total Indian
production. Mere listing of product by RINL does not mean that all steel manufacture recognize it as a
product and show it on the their website.
j. There are three types of producers in India which include MSME industry producing high ash met coke,
organised sector and few MSME companies producing the like goods for merchant market and captive
producers of the product.
k. There are at least 17 producers of the product producing met coke captively. Steel manufacturers
producing met coke for captive use must not be considered for the purpose of the present investigation as
they are essentially consumers of the product, they do not recognize met coke as a product, they do not
compete in the merchant market and are insulated from the merchant market situation.
l. The steel manufacturers do not specify met coke as a product on their website. The merchant market
prices for met coke vis-à-vis coking coal does not impact the steel manufacturers.
m. Captive producers should not be treated as the domestic industry which is consistent as per the objective
of safeguard laws, anti-dumping laws and practice of the Authorised Officer.
n. In the anti-dumping investigation on imports of low ash metallurgical coke, producers who were captively
consuming the product were not treated as part of the domestic industry.
o. There are notable differences in the economics of merchant producers and captive producers. The
merchant producers face competition from other merchant producers, both domestic and foreign, while
captive producers faced no such competition. Merchant producers are required to gain a return on
investment on the subject goods produced and sold in the market to maintain viability of their plant, the
captive producers require profits and return on investment on the downstream product.
p. As opposed to the contentions of the other interested parties, major share of domestic production has to be
defined on case-to-case basis. The Authorised Officer has considered less than 50% as major share in
safeguard investigations.
q. The application has been filed by the major producers of like goods in India. All other producers are small
in terms of individual production of the product.
D3. EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
32. The submissions made by the domestic industry and other interested parties with regard to the domestic industry
and their standing were considered and the main issues raised were definition of domestic industry, meaning of
major proportion and the locus standi of the applicants.
Domestic industry: Section 9A4(b) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 defines
domestic industry as:
“(b) domestic industry means the producers of goods (including producers of agricultural goods) –
(i) as a whole of the like goods or directly competitive goods in India; or
(ii) whose collective output of the like goods or directly competitive goods in India constitutes a major share of
the total production of the said goods in India.”.
33. The Agreement on Safeguards under Article 4 i.e. Determination of Serious Injury or Threat Thereof has
defined that for the purpose of this agreement:
(c) in determining injury or threat thereof, a domestic industry shall be understood to mean the producers as a whole
of the like or directly competitive products operating within the territory of a Member, or those whose collective
output of the like or directly competitive products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of
those products
It is noted that comprehending the precise delineation of the term "a major proportion of the total production" as
stipulated within the safeguard agreement necessitates a thorough comprehension of the contextual framework of
production so as to ascertain what constitutes total domestic production and thereby a major proportion.
34. It is noted that neither the safeguard agreement nor the FTDR Act defines the term production. The term domestic
industry in the agreement on safeguards has been defined under the Heading Serious Injury and therefore the
interpretation of the term production and a major proportion cannot be done in isolation.
35. It is noted that though the Agreement on Safeguards and FTDR Act is silent with regards to the definition of the
term production but there are other statutes encompassing such definitions which include, among others, the
Factories Act of 1948, the Special Economic Zone Act of 2005, the Central Excise Act of 1944, the Consumer
Protection Act of 1986, the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act of 1966, the Standard of Weights and Measures Act of
1976, and the Foreign Trade Policy. Notably, the definitions of production articulated within these statutes exhibit
substantial variations. These diverse laws and regulations have attributed differing meanings to the concept of
production, as discernible from the disparate interpretations evident across various legislative provisions. It is
further noted that the determination of production's meaning necessitates due consideration of the specific laws
and regulations in question, including the definitions and interpretations proffered therein, alongside an
examination of the underlying objectives and purposes for which said laws were promulgated. Of particular
relevance is the observation that under excise law, the completion of certain ancillary activities, such as
packaging, labeling, or treating goods for consumer marketability, suffices to qualify as production. However,
such activities do not necessarily fulfill the criteria for production under safeguard law or FTDR Act. Therefore,
imposition of a universal definition of the term production would be untenable and needs to be determined or
ascertained on a case-by-case basis with underlying objectives of the different statutes.
36. In the Agreement on Safeguards under Article 4.1(c) the domestic industry has been referred to as producers of
the like or directly competitive products. While there is no issue with respect to like goods, the Agreement
stipulates that the goods shall be directly competitive. Since, the domestic industry has been defined under the
heading Serious Inujury or Threat Thereof, the purpose of the determination of the domestic production shall
mean to be those domestic goods which are in direct competition with the imports and facing serious injury or
threat thereof.
37. While arguments have been posited advocating the inclusion of captive production within the ambit of total
domestic production, it is noted that such goods, by their nature, do not enter the merchant market and thus do not
directly compete with imported products. Captively produced goods, not being in competition with imports, do
not meet the criteria delineated for directly competitive goods under the Agreement, Act and associated Rules.
38. Moreover, a strict literal interpretation of the term "total domestic production," divorced from the overarching
purpose and legislative intent encapsulated within the Act, engenders ambiguity. The potential for ambiguity
arises in situations where the majority (80%) of a like article is produced captively, with only a minority portion
of the domestic production by the domestic producers (20%) being in the merchant market and thus facing
competition from the imported product under consideration. Such an interpretation of total domestic production to
include captive production would render the domestic producers constituting the 20% minority share of total
domestic production, who are actively engaged in merchant market sales and thus directly competing with the
imported product under scrutiny, devoid of any recourse under the Law. This outcome would be antithetical to the
underlying purpose and intent of the FTDR Act, which is designed to redress serious injury inflicted upon
domestic producers by sudden sharp and significant import surges.
39. In US – Lamb15
, the Appellate Body concurred with the finding of the Panel that, in the context of an investigation
in which the relevant like product was defined as lamb meat, the term "domestic industry" could not be
interpreted as including growers and feeders of live lambs. The Appellate Body began by identifying the
analytical approach towards defining "domestic industry"
"[A] safeguard measure is imposed on a specific 'product', namely, the imported product. The
measure may only be imposed if that specific product ('such product') is having the stated effects
upon the 'domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products'. (emphasis added)
The conditions in Article 2.1, therefore, relate in several important respects to specific products. In
particular, according to Article 2.1, the legal basis for imposing a safeguard measure exists only
when imports of a specific product have prejudicial effects on domestic producers of products that
are 'like or directly competitive' with that imported product. In our view, it would be a clear
departure from the text of Article 2.1 if a safeguard measure could be imposed because of the
prejudicial effects that an imported product has on domestic producers of products that are not 'like
or directly competitive products' in relation to the imported product. Accordingly, the first step in
determining the scope of the domestic industry is the identification of the products which are 'like or
directly competitive' with the imported product. Only when those products have been identified is it
possible then to identify the 'producers' of those products."
40. It is further noted that the Authorised Officer in the past has also underscored the same principle while excluding
the producers of SEZ from total domestic production while determining the standing in terms of major proportion
under safeguard agreement in the matter of safeguard investigation concerning imports of “Solar Cells whether or
not assembled in modules or panels”2
into India which is as under:
“Though section 2(i) of SEZ Act does not specifically mention about DTA clearances by a SEZ unit
as an import in the DTA, but such clearances are subjected to duties like Anti-dumping duty,
Countervailing duty and Safeguard duty as applicable in accordance with section 9A and section 8B
of the Custom tariff Act, 1975. Section 30 of SEZ Act, 2005 stipulating collection of applicable Anti dumping, Countervailing and Safeguard duties requires filing of a bill of entry which validates the
fact that such DTA clearances are infact to be treated as imports. Therefore, the following is
concluded:
(i) The fundamental objective of establishing SEZ units is promotion of exports governed by a
specific SEZ Act, 2005. The area of SEZ are excluded from the definition of DTA under
section 2(i) of SEZ Act, 2005. Supply of goods from DTA to SEZ constitutes exports.
(ii) DTA sale of goods manufactured by a SEZ unit can be made only on submission of import
licence, as applicable to the import of similar goods into India. Sale or clearance of goods
from SEZ to DTA is subject to various duties i.e. Anti-dumping duty, Countervailing duty
and Safeguard duty imposed as per section 9 and 8B respectively as per Custom Tariff Act,
1975 and levied as per Section 30 of SEZ Act, 2005. 126
(iii) ( EOU’s are governed by specific Foreign Trade Policy provisions and its sales to SEZ
units are considered as export. The Foreign Trade Policy provisions also apply to DTA
units as well as to those who wish to undertake imports/exports. Further DTA clearances by
an EOU are liable for payment of applicable Excise duties/taxes. They operate outside the
SEZ territories quite analogous to normal DTA units in the same ecosystems
1Appellate Body Report, US – Lamb, paras. 86-87
2https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Solar-Final-Finding-English-0.pdf
(iv) Therefore, on the basis of the above, I hold that the provision of Sales to DTA by a SEZ unit
as an exception with features varying in different cases, does not justify a SEZ unit to be
considered as a domestic producer in the context of trade remedial measures keeping in
view the context of the larger framework of SEZ Act, 2005.
Therefore, the scope of DI in this investigation is restricted only to the producers i. e. M/s
Indosolar Limited (EOU) and M/s Jupiter Solar Power Limited, which includes the EOU
unit also, since they are physically located in DTA governed by Foreign Trade Policies
though with export orientation. (v) With the exclusion of 3 SEZ units, the DI is now
restricted to M/s Indosolar Limited and M/s Jupiter Solar Power Limited which collectively
account for 38% of the total domestic production in the DTA”.
41. It is further noted that even the references sought from the decisions of WTO reports establish important principle
regarding the inclusion and assessment of captive consumption in domestic industry production for safeguard
investigations. The Appellate Body has also acknowledged that captive consumption can be included in production
calculations. However, it emphasized the need for proportionality. What is inferred through a reading on the
decisions of WTO panel and appellate body reports is that the captive consumption shouldn't automatically be
added, it needs justification. Authorities must assess the proportion of captive consumption relative to total
production. Only significant proportions that distort the analysis should be excluded. Including disproportionately
large amounts of captive consumption could artificially inflate the domestic industry's size and its apparent injury
from imports. This could lead to unjustified safeguard measures harming legitimate trade.
42. In consonance with the precedent and to maintain coherence in interpretation, it is affirmed that captive
production, not being in competition with imports, does not contribute to injury faced by domestic producers
engaged in direct competition with imported goods. Hence, in determining total domestic production within the
present context, only producers vending like goods which are directly competitive and are subject to the injurious
effects envisioned under the law are factored Therefore, a major proportion of the like or directly competitive
goods constituting the domestic industry in the facts of the present case is assessed based on the production of the
industry in the merchant market excluding the captive production.
43. As regards the issue of major proportion, it is noted that The Panel in US –Wheat Gluten36
addressed the link
between the phrase "major proportion" and the question of data coverage
"The Agreement expressly envisages that, in certain circumstances, the 'domestic industry' may consist of those
domestic producers 'whose collective output of the like or directly competitive products constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of those products'. This implies that complete data coverage may not
always be possible and is not required. While the fullest possible data coverage is required in order to maximize
the accuracy of the investigation, there may be circumstances in a particular case which do not allow an
investigating Authorised Officer to obtain such coverage.”
44. The Panel in US – Lamb47
also pointed out that an incorrect determination of what constitutes the "domestic
industry" will likely vitiate also the representativeness of data related to such incorrectly determined domestic
industry:
"This lack of representativeness is likely compounded by the fact that the USITC defined the domestic industry
broadly as including growers and feeders, as the conclusions drawn from the data pertaining to only a small
proportion of US growers and feeders are central to the USITC's overall finding of threat of serious injury."
45. Based on the above precedents and interpretations established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate
Body, it can be deduced that the concept of "a major proportion" in defining the domestic industry does not
adhere to a strict threshold. Rather, the crux lies in ensuring that the data provided by domestic producers is
sufficiently representative to evaluate the criteria of serious injury and the potential threat thereof.
46. As regards the contention of major proportion in view of the standing of the domestic industry under Article 4 (c)
of the Safeguard Agreement, it is noted that Article 4 of Agreement on Safeguard Measures reads as under:
47. "For the purposes of this Agreement:
a) "serious injury" shall be understood to mean a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic
industry;
b) "threat of serious injury" shall be understood to mean serious injury that is clearly imminent, in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 2. A determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury shall be
based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility; and;
c) In determining injury or threat thereof, a "domestic industry" shall be understood to mean the producers as a
whole of the like or directly competitive products operating within the territory of a Member, or those whose
collective output of the like or directly competitive products constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of Those products.
48. As can be seen from the above, Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards provides two options for the
definition of the "domestic industry" (i) "the producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive products";
or (ii) the producers whose output constitutes "a major proportion" of the total domestic production of the like or
directly competitive products. It is noted that unlike anti-dumping agreement, the Agreement on Safeguards
does not provide any specific percentage or share of the domestic production, which would meet the
requirement of "a major proportion". Neither does it establish any methodology or procedure that competent
authorities must follow for determining a major proportion of the total domestic production. The consideration
as to what constitutes "a major Proportion" depends on the specific circumstances of each case.
49. "The Appellate Body has also clarified, in the context of a similar provision in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that
the term "major proportion" means "a relatively high proportion of the total domestic production". The term
"major proportion" has both "quantitative and qualitative connotations". The qualitative element aims to ensure
that "the domestic producers of the like product that are included in the definition of domestic industry are
representative of the total domestic production". The Appellate Body has stated that there is "an inverse
relationship" between the proportion of total production included in the domestic industry and the existence of a
material risk of distortion in the definition of domestic industry and in the assessment of injury.
50. Specifically, "the lower the proportion, the more sensitive an investigating Authorized Officer will have to be to
ensure that the proportion used substantially reflects the total production of the producers as a whole". At the
same time, "the higher the proportion, the more producers will be included, and the less likely the injury
determination conducted on this basis would be distorted".
51. Further the Panel in US - Wheat Gluten addressed the link between the phrase "major proportion" and the
question of data coverage: "[T]he Agreement expressly envisages that, in certain circumstances, the 'domestic
industry' may consist of those domestic producers 'whose collective output of the like or directly competitive
products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those products'. This implies that
complete data coverage may not always be possible and is not required. While the fullest possible data coverage
is required in order to maximize the accuracy of the investigation, there may be circumstances in a particular
case which do not allow an investigating Authorized Officer to obtain such coverage.
52. The Panel in US - Lamb made clear that a national Authorized Officer is not under an obligation to collect
information from all domestic producers so as to ensure the representativeness of the data used for its final
determination. Nevertheless, the Panel invoked, among other things, the need for a "statistically valid sample.
"Major proportion relates to the representativeness of the data pertaining to the condition of the industry. "
53. Hence, the primary concern for an investigating Authorized Officer lies in the condition of the industry, and the
data utilized should sufficiently reflect the true status of domestic producers. This entails both quantitative and
qualitative analyses. It could be argued that when the data coverage of domestic producers falls below 50%,
there is a heightened risk of inaccurately assessing serious injury, however in absence of any percentage
threshold it is the quantitative and qualitative analyses that acquires primacy.
54. In the current investigation, the applicants previously furnished a roster of producers detailing their production
capacities and respective shares in the overall domestic production. Subsequently, a revised list has been
provided by the applicants wherein certain industries have been excluded from the scope of domestic producers
for the product under consideration, either due to their status as traders or their non-production of the subject
goods. Upon revising such data, the percentage share of the applicant producers in total domestic production
rises to 53%, while that of supporters ascends to 14%. Even if the argument raised by other interested parties
regarding percentage thresholds is considered, the applicant producers still comprise 53% of the total domestic
production and when combined with the supporters, their collective percentage share reaches 67% as per the
revised data, thereby meeting the criteria for standing of the domestic industry.
55. However, at this juncture, even though the domestic industry has provided a revised production data, the
Authorized officer does not take it into consideration as it has been revised at the fag end of the investigation i.e.
post issuance of the disclosure statement. Nevertheless, the Authorized Officer, in alignment with the
jurisprudential framework delineated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning Article 4(c) of the
Safeguards Agreement, maintains that the applicant producers encompass a blend of large-scale enterprises and
Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs). This composition resembles the roster of non participating producers, thereby rendering the applicant industry sufficiently representative to delineate the
current state of domestic producers in its entirety. Further, it is worth noting, that no specific percentage
threshold has been defined by the legislature concerning the standing of the domestic industry under the
principle of major proportion, as outlined in Article 4(c) of the safeguards agreement. Rather, it is the
representativeness of the industry that requires scrutiny to ensure that the applicant industries accurately reflect
the prevailing conditions of the existing industry, thereby enhancing the precision of the injury determination
process. In the instant investigation, the amalgamation within the cohort of applicant producers mirrors the
extant state of the industry, satisfying both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Consequently, it cannot be
precluded on grounds of standing pursuant to the principle of major proportion as outlined in Article 4(c) of the
safeguards agreement. In light of the foregoing, the Authorized Officer holds that the applicant producers indeed
constitute a major proportion as stipulated under Article 4(c) of the Safeguard Agreement.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
E1. Submissions by other interested parties
56. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality.
a. The applicants have claimed excessive confidentiality as aggregate data for sales value, employees,
productivity per day, inventories, PBIT, interest / finance cost, depreciation and amortisation expense
have not been shared.
E2. Submissions by the domestic industry
57. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality:
a. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, actual information regarding prices, cost
and profitability would allow the customers to negotiate on the prices of the applicants and would have an
adverse impact on the performance of the petitioners. Hence, the same has not been shared.
E3. Examination by the Authorised Officer
58. With regard to confidentiality of the information, the Rule 7 of the Rules provides as follows:
“Confidential information-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1 ), (3) and (7) of rule 6, and sub-rule (5) of rule 9,
any information which is by nature confidential or which is provided on a confidential basis shall, upon
cause being shown, be treated as such by the Authorised Officer and not be disclosed without specific
authorisation of the party providing such information.
(2) The Authorised Officer may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish
non confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of the party providing such information, such
information cannot be summarised, such party may submit to the Authorised Officer a statement of
reasons why summarisation of such information is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the Authorised Officer is satisfied that the
request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is unwilling either to make
the information public or to authorise its disclosure in a generalised or summary form, it may disregard
such information unless it is demonstrated to its satisfaction from appropriate sources that such
information is correct.”
59. The non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties has been made available
by directing the interested parties to share the non-confidential version of the submissions with each other
through e-mails.
60. The domestic industry has provided some information in its application on confidential basis and has requested
that it be treated as confidential. The domestic industry has also provided a non-confidential version (NCV) of
its application, as required under the Rules. Further, the domestic industry has submitted reasons justifying
their claim of confidentiality of this information.
61. Some of the interested parties have claimed that the applicants have claimed excessive confidentiality by not
providing aggregate data regarding profitability, interest / finance cost, depreciation and amortization expenses.
The Authorized Officer holds that sharing of confidential parameters will have an adverse impact on the
business interests of the domestic industry and provide competitive advantage to the competitors and
consumers. It will allow the customers to evaluate whether they are paying higher or lower prices other than
customers and it may lead to customers demanding lower prices. Further, as a practice, the Authorised Officer
has allowed interested parties to claim such information as confidential, on good cause being shown. In view of
the same, the Authorized Officer has accepted the confidentiality claimed by the domestic industry.
62. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined with regard to
sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the confidentiality claims have been accepted,
wherever warranted and such information has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested
parties.
F. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
F1. Submissions by other interested parties
63. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties:
a. The applicants have not produced substantive evidence for initiation of the investigation and the
Authorised Officer has not carried out appropriate and enough scrutiny to the facts available.
b. The domestic industry is a habitual user of trade remedies and intends to limit import competition by
permanently seeking trade remedial measures.
c. The applicants have not disclosed the source of import data. The import data seems unreliable as the
applicants have stated that certain descriptions have not been considered as imports of the product under
consideration. However, published DGCI&S data does not disclose the description of the product.
d. Since the volume of imports prior to 2019-20 was higher than the imports in the injury period,
determining quota based on imports in 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 will severely impact the
availability of the product under consideration in India. The Authorised Officer may kindly consider three
representative years prior to 2019-20.
e. The applicants have not provided clarification regarding the duration for measures requested in post initiation submissions. In case, the measures requested are for more than one year, an adjustment plan
should be provided by the applicants.
f. There is no legal basis to determine quota without including the surge period. There has been a recent
increase in demand for the product under consideration, quota which is not representative of demand supply gap will be detrimental to the downstream industry.
F2. Submissions by the domestic industry
64. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry:
a. The other interested parties have not pointed out the evidence which has not been provided by the
domestic industry.
b. As opposed to the contentions of the other interested parties, the Authorised Officer recommended anti dumping duty only after conducting a detailed investigation and concluded that the exporters are engaged
in unfair trade practices.
c. The applicants have provided DGCI&S published data, however, the Authorised Officer will rely on
DGCI&S transaction by transaction data.
d. Contrary to the submissions of the other interested parties, historical data is irrelevant in the present
investigation and quota should be based on the past practice of the Authorised Officer.
e. The applicants have requested measures for a period of one year.
f. It is a consistent practice of the Authorised Officer to determine quota based on previous three years.
F3. Examination by the Authorised Officer
65. With regards to the contention that the investigation was initiated based on information unsubstantiated with
evidence, it is noted that the applicants have provided a duly substantiated application, based on which the
present investigation was initiated. The investigation was initiated only after prima facie satisfaction regarding
the existence of sufficient evidence. No evidence has been provided by interested parties to dispute any
material information provided by the domestic industry at the stage of initiation, or to dispute the prima facie
conclusions drawn by the Authorized Officer at such stage.
66. The other interested parties have submitted that the domestic industry is a habitual user of trade remedies. It is
however, noted that the domestic industry has filed an application with substantive evidence of increased
imports, due to unforeseen developments, causing serious injury to the domestic industry. The remedial
measures will be taken as per the safeguard rules on case by case basis.
67. With regards to the source of import data, as stated in the procedure part hereinabove, transaction-wise data
received from DGCI&S has been relied upon for the purpose of the present investigation.
68. The other interested parties have submitted that the quota should be based on imports prior to 2019-20. The
Authorized Officer notes that the practice of the Authorised Officer is to determine quota based on average
imports in three years prior to the surge period. The imports may have been higher prior to 2019-20. However,
the market situation has changed post COVID-19. The demand in India has also changed substantially pre and
post COVID-19. The Authorized Officer would recommend any measures as per prevailing rules.
G. INCREASE IN IMPORTS
Submissions by the other interested parties
69. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to increase in imports:
a. The Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear held that the increase in imports should be recent, sudden,
sharp, and significant, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Thus, such requirements must be
cumulatively satisfied, and it is not sufficient if only one or two of these criteria are met.
b. The Authorised Officer must determine surge based on the complete injury period and not just the
previous year. The Appellate Body in US –Lamb held that entire trend for the period of investigation
should be taken into consideration, rather than isolating the data of the most recent period and evaluating
it separately.
c. Imports from Poland did not undergo any sudden, sharp and recent increase as opposed to imports into
India from other countries. The applicants have not explained how increase in prices of coal leads to
increase in imports from Poland to India. Imports from Russia have declined over the injury period and
imports from all other sources are also declining.
d. The exporter from Poland has exported under long-term agreement and such exports have not been
impacted by any unforeseen development. The imports from the exporter actually declined and was
lowest during the most recent period. Thus, Poland / exporter should be excluded from imposition of
quantitative restrictions.
e. Imports have primarily increased from China, thus, Quantitative Restrictions on all imports into India is
not the appropriate remedy.
f. Imports have increased majorly from China. The exports from China had declined in 2020-21 and 2021-
22 due to COVID-19 but as soon as the economy recovered, the exports from China increased. Such
increase was also due to the reason that demand for met coke had increased in Indian steel industry.
g. There is no surge in the volume of imports since imports did not increase in comparison to the total
period of investigation. Increase in imports during the most recent period is only due to normalization of
trade post COVID-19. The imports have actually declined as compared to imports in 2016-17, 2017-18
and 2018-19.
h. The imports from Indonesia account for a very low share of total imports. The price of imports from
Indonesia fluctuated with the market condition but remained stable overall.
i. Imports into India have increased due to increase in production of crude steel.
j. The imports in 2020-21 and 2021-22 declined due to effect of COVID-19. The imports in India
increased by only 20% as compared to 2019-20 which is normal rate of increase considering the growth
in demand.
k. Since Rule 9 of the Safeguard (QR) Rules states that the Authorized Officer should recommend the
extent and nature of Quantitative Restrictions adequate for prevention of serious injury, the Authorised
Officer may exclude a specific country from imposition of Quantitative Restrictions. Even the global
safeguard (tariff-rate quota) may be imposed against specific country.
G.2 SUBMISSIONS BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
70. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to increase in imports:
a) There is a sudden, sharp, and significant increase in imports of the product under consideration as a
consequence of unforeseen developments.
b) The share of the product under consideration has increased significantly in relation to the production and
consumption in India.
c) Imports have primarily increased from China, Australia, Indonesia, Switzerland, Singapore and UAE.
However, Switzerland, Singapore and UAE do not have manufacturing facilities, hence, such imports are
transhipment of goods.
d) As opposed to the contention of the other interested parties, the imports from China have increased
significantly even when compared to 2019-20, which was not impacted by COVID-19.
e) The demand for the product under consideration has increased by 5% as compared to the previous year
while the imports have increased by 46%. Thus, such increase is not due to increase in production of steel.
f) As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, the imports from Indonesia have increased
significantly in India and is priced below the raw material cost of the domestic industry.
g) As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, there is no requirement that the imports
should have increased from all sources.
h) There is no provision under the Act or the Rules to exclude imports from a particular country or exporter
from the purview of the present investigation.
G3. Examination by the Authorised Officer
G3.1 Meaning of “increased quantity”
71. Under the provisions of Section 9A of the Act, safeguard measures may be invoked where a product is being
imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury
to the domestic industry. As per Rule 2(c) of the Quantitative Restrictions Rules, "increased quantity" includes
increase in import, whether in absolute terms or relative to domestic production.
G3.2 Increase in imports in absolute terms
72. The volume of imports over the period of investigation was as follows.
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Particulars | Unit | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 |
+=============+=======+===========+===========+===========+===========+
| Australia | MT | 1,44,573 | 18,002 | 1,16,925 | 2,55,530 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Bahrain | MT | 453 | 552 | 1,711 | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Bhutan | MT | - | - | 91 | 100 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Chile | MT | - | 11,364 | 11,800 | 12,408 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| China PR | MT | 3,13,567 | 32,690 | 82,431 | 8,29,732 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Colombia | MT | 3,99,682 | 5,22,275 | 4,39,508 | 4,39,850 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Egypt | MT | 42,675 | - | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Finland | MT | 40,812 | - | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Germany | MT | 3 | - | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Hong Kong | MT | 3,565 | 56 | 1,934 | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Indonesia | MT | 1,50,521 | 1,34,267 | 76,956 | 2,56,699 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Iran | MT | 17,384 | 610 | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Italy | MT | - | 32 | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Japan | MT | 4,19,909 | 3,79,058 | 3,45,603 | 3,00,245 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Korea RP | MT | - | - | 36,371 | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Malaysia | MT | 597 | - | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Netherland | MT | - | - | 38,418 | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| New Zealand | MT | - | 291 | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Oman | MT | - | - | - | 10,000 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Poland | MT | 7,49,967 | 9,56,636 | 10,53,358 | 8,60,925 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Puerto Rico | MT | 4,000 | - | - | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Qatar | MT | 956 | 2,842 | 5,031 | 3,367 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Russia | MT | 3,22,561 | 1,18,850 | 44,710 | 85,144 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Saudi Arab | MT | - | - | - | 237 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Singapore | MT | 1,76,351 | 51,878 | 25,112 | 1,98,182 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| South Africa| MT | - | - | - | 312 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Spain | MT | 259 | 97 | 94 | - |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Switzerland | MT | 46,019 | 1,96,647 | 2,03,074 | 2,09,586 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| UAE | MT | 24 | 5,831 | 2,558 | 53,112 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| UK | MT | 87 | 98 | 229 | 225 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| USA | MT | - | - | 653 | 0 |
+-------------+-------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Ukraine | MT | - | - |
Login to read full text