PF ADD imports of Low Ash Metallurgical Coke exported from Australia China PR Colombia Indonesia Japan and Russia

``` REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 The Gazette of India CG-DL-E-17112025-267727 EXTRAORDINARY PART I-Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2025/KARTIKA 23, 1947 MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) New Delhi, the 14th November, 2025 NOTIFICATION PRELIMINARY FINDINGS CASE NO. AD(OI) – 03/2025 Subject: Preliminary Findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Low Ash Metallurgical Coke" originating in or exported from Australia, China PR, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia. F. No. 6/03/2025-DGTR.- A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1. Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association ('IMCOM') (hereinafter also referred to as the "applicant" or "applicant association") has filed an application on behalf of the domestic industry before the Designated Authority (hereinafter also referred to as the “Authority”), in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred as the "Act") and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the “Rules" or "Anti- Dumping Rules"), for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Low Ash Metallurgical Coke” (hereinafter also referred to as the “product under consideration” or the “subject goods"), originating in or exported from Australia, China PR, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia (hereinafter also referred to as the “subject countries"). 2. The Authority, on the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant, issued a public notice vide Notification No. 6/03/2025-DGTR, dated 29th March 2025, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, initiating the subject investigation in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules to determine existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries, and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. B. PROCEDURE 3. The procedure described herein below has been followed with regard to the subject investigation: i. The Authority notified the Embassies of the subject countries in India about the receipt of the present anti- dumping application before proceeding to initiate the investigation in accordance with Rule 5(5) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. ii. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29th March 2025, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, initiating an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries. iii. The Authority sent a copy of the initiation notification along with questionnaires to the embassies of the subject countries in India, known producers/exporters from the subject countries, known importers/users and the domestic industry as well as other domestic producers as per the email addresses made available by the applicants and requested them to make their views known, in writing, within the prescribed time limit. iv. The Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the embassies of the subject countries in India, the known producers/exporters, importers and users in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. v. The embassies of the subject countries in India were also requested to advise the producers/exporters from their countries to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. vi. The Authority sent exporter's questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in the subject countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules: 1. AT Global Resources Pte Ltd. 2. BlueScope Steel Limited 3. Bulk Trading Sa 4. China Risun Group (Hong Kong) Limited 5. Global Resource Group (Grg) Ltd. 6. Hargreaves Raw Material Services Gmbh 7. Hong Kong Global Fair Trade Co. Ltd. 8. Hong Kong Pu Tian Industrial Co. Ltd. 9. IMR Metallurgical Resources AG 10. Indo International Trading Fzc 11. Innovation Worldwide Dmcc 12. Jacobi Carbons Ag 13. Jinan Cosave New Material Co. Ltd. 14. Linyi Trade City Yicaitong Supply Chain Co. Ltd. 15. Meridian Global Resources (Hk) Ltd. 16. Metal International Trading Co. Ltd. 17. Mitsubishi Corporation 18. Mitsubishi Corporation Rtm Japan Ltd. 19. Ningxia Actec Industry Corporation 20. Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company Ltd. 21. Ningxia Huahui Environmental Technology Co. Ltd. 22. Nippon Steel Trading Corporation 23. Nobel Resources International Pte. Ltd. 24. Norecom Dmcc 25. Numen Global Pte. Ltd. 26. Numerco Ltd. 27. Prosperity Development Enterprise 28. Shaanxi Zenith I E Co. Ltd. 29. Shahe Ji Jin Petroleum Coke Trade Co. Ltd. 30. Shandong Gangda International Trading Co. Ltd. 31. Sierra Blanca Group Sas 32. Sinomet International Corporation 33. Thyssenkrupp Materials Trading Asia Pte Ltd. 34. Trafigura Pte Ltd. 35. Trafugura Pte Ltd. 36. Ugm Group Ltd. 37. Visa Commodities Ag 38. Vitelia Trade Ltd. 39. World Metals and Alloys (Fzc) 40. Yeung Tai Environmental Industrial (Hk) Co. Ltd. 41. Zouping Jingguang Coke Trading Co, vii. The following producers/exporters filed response to the exporters' questionnaire issued by the Authority. 1. BlueScope Steel Limited 2. China Risun Group (Hong Kong) Limited, Hong Kong 3. Hong Kong Jinteng Development Limited 4. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Japan 5. Mitsubishi Corporation RTM Japan Ltd. 6. PT Detian Coking Indonesia 7. PT Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia 8. PT Risun Wei Shan Indonesia 9. Risun Marketing Limited 10. Risun Materials Co., Limited (Japan) 11. Risun Weishan Engineering (Hainan) Limited, China viii. The Authority sent importers and users' questionnaire to the known importers/users of the subject goods in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules. A list of such importers and users is enclosed as Annexure 1. ix. The following importers/users have participated in the present investigation filing a response to the importers'/users' questionnaires issued by the Authority. 1. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited 2. Mukund Limited 3. Neo Metaliks Limited 4. Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited 5. SLR Metaliks Limited x. The Authority issued economic interest questionnaire to all interested parties and concerned ministry. The following parties have filed a response to the economic interest questionnaire. 1. Domestic industry 2. Alloy Steel Producers Association of India ("ASPA") 3. Orissa Metaliks Private Limited 4. Rashmi Metaliks Limited 5. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited 6. Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited 7. SLR Metaliks Limited 8. Mukund Limited 9. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation 10. Mitsubishi Corporation RtM Japan Ltd. xi. Further, submissions were also filed during the course of the investigation by the following parties 1. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. 2. Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd. 3. Purulia Metal Casting Pvt. Ltd. xii. Information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority 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 a confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. xiii. The Authority conducted a meeting dated 22nd May 2025 where all the interested parties were invited to discuss and clarify their comments on the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology. Based on the submissions made by the interested parties, the Authority finalized the scope of the product under consideration and the PCN methodology vide notification dated 7th July 2025. xiv. The Authority made available non-confidential version of the evidence presented by various interested parties. A list of all interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR website, along with the request to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. xv. Request was made to the DG Systems to provide the transaction-wise details of imports of the subject goods for the past three years, and the period of investigation, which was received by the Authority. The Authority has relied upon the DG systems data for computation of the volume of imports and its analysis after due examination of the transactions. xvi. The Non-Injurious Price (NIP) has been determined based on optimum cost of production and cost to make & sell the subject goods in India based on the information furnished by the domestic industry, maintained as per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Annexure III to the Rules, has been worked out so as to ascertain whether the present interim anti-dumping duty would be sufficient to remove injury to the domestic industry. xvii. The period of investigation for the purpose of the present anti-dumping investigation is 1st October 2023 to 30th September 2024 (12 Months). The injury investigation period has been considered as 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022, 1st April 2022 - 31st March 2023, 1st April 2023 - 31st March 2024 and the period of investigation. xviii. The submissions made by the interested parties during the course of this investigation, to the extent supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation, have been appropriately considered by the Authority, in this preliminary findings. xix. Wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information during the course of the present investigation, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has preliminarily considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the views/observations on the basis of the facts available. xx. '***' in this preliminary finding represents information furnished on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. xxi. The exchange rate adopted by the Authority for the subject investigation is 1 USD = ₹ 84.27 C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE 4. At the stage of initiation of the present investigation, the following was considered as the scope of the product under consideration. "Low Ash Metallurgical Coke that is, Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18% excluding ultra- low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content up to 0.030% with size upto 30 mm with 5% size tolerance for use in ferroalloy manufacturing. Metallurgical Coke is used as a primary fuel in industries where a uniform and high temperature is required in kilns or furnaces, such as in production of pig iron, foundries, ferro alloys, chemical plants and steel plants." C.1. Submissions by the other interested parties 5. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the product under consideration and like article. i. It is evident from the definition of the product under consideration that it covers LAM Coke with ash content below 18%, and particle size up to 30 mm (with 5% tolerance). The product under consideration excludes ultra-low phosphorous coke (≤0.030% P). The product under consideration is limited to LAM Coke intended for ferro-alloy manufacturing only. ii. The domestic industry does not manufacture met coke with ash content upto 12% and the same should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. iii. Since the domestic industry does not manufacture Ultra-low phosphorous coke with phosphorous content upto 0.030%, the same should be excluded irrespective of size or industry. iv. Coke fines and breeze should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as the same is not produced separately and is a by-product. The Authority excluded coke fines and coke breeze in the safeguard (quantitative restrictions) investigation. v. The Authority may verify the sales register of the domestic industry in order to examine whether the grades for which exclusion has been requested have been sold in commercial quantities by the domestic industry. vi. While the exporter has exported met coke with size distribution 10-50mm exclusively for corex application, the domestic industry does not produce the same. Accordingly, met coke for corex application should be excluded. vii. Nut coke should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as it is different from lump coke used in blast furnace. Nut coke does not compete with the product under consideration in the Indian market. viii. Small lump coke should be excluded as the same is a by-product with high Coke Strength after reduction ("CSR") and low Coke Reactivity Index (“CRI”). These parameters are required for blast furnace application. ix. Lump coke should be excluded as it is exclusively used for blast furnace steelmaking and has very high quality attributes. x. Met Coke with size 30-50 mm should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as the same is not manufactured by the domestic industry. xi. Nippon Coke's grades of lumpy coke for blast furnace include high strength metallurgical coke, which has a higher Micum Index and CRI should be excluded as the same is not manufactured by the domestic industry. xii. Narsingh Ispat Limited (“NIL") uses 20-40 mm low ash metallurgical coke as raw material for production of pig iron and is directly impacted by the present investigation. Thus, it should be registered as an interested party in the present investigation. xiii. NIL has mini blast furnaces with capacity below 100 cubic meters which cannot utilize standard coke sizes due to technical constraints. Micro blast furnace is used in India by NIL, Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited and Purulia Metal Casting Private Limited. xiv. NIL has sourced met coke in 2023-24 from domestic manufacturers, imported directly and through traders in India. xv. Low ash metallurgical coke with size 20-40 mm should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as domestic manufacturers do not produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the demand in India. The said product is only produced as a by-product. xvi. The demand for LAM Coke 20-40 mm is only 5% of total demand for subject goods in India. The imports are restricted to only eastern region and used only by pig iron manufacturers. Since the Indian industry does not produce this size, there can be no injury to the domestic industry due to imports of such product. xvii. Domestic producers have expressed inability to supply coke of 20-40 mm through written correspondence. Size below 40 mm, is meant only for captive consumption of domestic manufacturers and not for merchant sales. Domestic producers have offered alternate sizes of 20-50 mm and 20-85 mm to NIL, however, such sizes cannot be used in micro blast furnaces. xviii. Coke of 20-40 mm size has different characteristics that make it technically different from larger sizes of coke. The size affects gas flow patterns, heat transfer and furnace operations. xix. The product required for micro blast furnace application is that with ash content upto 13%. The domestic producers typically produce coke with higher ash content which is unsuitable for micro blast furnace. xx. Parameters such as ash content, size, moisture content, coke strength after reduction (CSR) and coke reactivity index (CRI) affect the cost and price of the product under consideration and should be considered for the purpose of PCN. xxi. Application, that is, met coke for blast furnace and met coke for corex, should be considered for the purpose of PCN. xxii. Moisture Content up to 5% and above 5% by weight and content of undersized particles up to 5% and above 5% by volume should be considered as PCN for the present investigation. xxiii. Tumbler Strength (M40) should be considered as a parameter for PCN as higher M40 is more expensive than lower M40. C.2. Submissions by the Domestic Industry 6. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to product under consideration and like article are as follows: i. The product scope considered by the Authority in the initiation notification may be considered for the scope of the present investigation. ii. The submissions made by BlueScope Steel Limited should be rejected as it has failed to disclose the characteristics of the product for which exclusions have been requested. iii. The other interested parties have failed to provide any evidence with regard to the fact that the domestic industry is not producing like article to the grades for which exclusion has been requested. iv. In order to produce various grades of the subject goods, only the coal with desired parameters is required. There is no change in the production process to produce subject goods with characteristics identified by the other interested parties. The domestic industry has the capacity to produce the product which characteristics identified by the other interested parties. v. The domestic industry has produced and sold met coke with ash content of 12% and below and no exclusion is warranted for the same. vi. Small lump coke, lump coke, nut coke and coke with size 30-50 mm are classified only based on size. Since size is solely dependent upon screening, the domestic industry is capable to manufacture all sizes of met coke. vii. The domestic industry has produced and sold nut coke in the merchant market. Thus, exclusion for nut coke is not justified. viii. The terminology, lump coke and small lump coke, are not used in India and the other interested parties have failed to provide the characteristics for such product. ix. Since both lump coke and small lump coke are used in blast furnace application and the domestic industry has supplied the subject goods for blast furnace application, the domestic industry has supplied like article. Hence, exclusion request is not justified in this regard. x. There is no demand for met coke with CSR higher than 70% and CRI less than 20% in India. Since the domestic industry has not received an enquiry for such a product, the same has not been produced. However, the domestic industry is capable to produce the same by merely changing the raw material used. The said product may not be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. xi. One of the applicants has recently produced met coke with CSR higher than 70% and CRI less than 20%. However, such a product has not been sold since there is no demand for the said product in India. xii. As opposed to the submissions of the other interested parties, coke breeze and coke fines have similar purposes and application to met coke of larger size. The said product has been produced and sold by the domestic industry during the period of investigation. Thus, there is no justification to exclude the same. xiii. There is no legal basis to exclude a grade in the present investigation as the same was excluded in the previous investigation. There is no bar on changing the product under consideration from one investigation to another. The Authority has considered different product scopes in different investigations in the past. xiv. The domestic industry has not manufactured ULP coke for ferroalloy manufacturing only due to commercial consideration. The ferroalloy industry requires ULP coke of 30 mm or below. The requirement of such product in India for ferroalloy application is only 5% of the production of the Indian industry. xv. The exclusion for ULP coke should be restricted to only ferroalloy industry as there is no requirement for such product by any other segment. In case, the exclusion is not restricted based on final use, the steel manufacturers and other segments may to shift to imports of ULP coke as the same will become lower priced as compared to duty inclusive price of normal coke. xvi. The domestic industry has supplied the subject goods for use in blast furnace and applications other than ferroalloy manufacturing. Thus, the domestic industry has supplied commercially and technically substitutable product for applications other than ferroalloy manufacturing. xvii. ULP coke should be considered as that with phosphorous content of upto 0.01% which is evident from the website of Nilachal Carbo Metaliks Limited. xviii. Since same product is used for blast furnace application and corex application, and the domestic industry has produced and sold the said product, exclusion request for the same is not justified. xix. The other interested parties have failed to define the exact parameter for high micum index. The domestic industry has produced the said product during the injury period and the same may not be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. xx. The representation filed by NIL is belated and should not be considered. The submissions have been made 122 days after the deadline. Further, NIL has not filed any response to users' or importers' questionnaire and has made allegations without substantiating the same. This clearly shows non- cooperation. xxi. Submissions by NIL should be rejected for lapse in procedural requirements. Without prejudice to the same, it must be directed to file a response to questionnaire issued by the Authority. xxii. NIL had raised the same concerns to DGFT post issuance of recommendations by DGTR in the safeguard investigation. However, the same were not accepted by Ministry of Commerce at that time. xxiii. Indian industry has produced and supplied the product with size between 2mm to 200+ mm. Production of met coke in desired size is a mere requirement of doing sizing of the met coke produced. The sizing of the product is not the main part of production process. xxiv. Jindal Coke Limited has offered the product to NIL as per specifications required by it. However, NIL has not replied to the communication sent and chosen to import the product. xxv. Nilachal Carbo Metalliks Limited has also offered the product to NIL. It has offered both 20-40 mm sizes and 20-40 mm size. However, NIL has asked Nilachal to first produce 100 MT of product, without any order for testing purposes. Such a request is not in line with established industry process. xxvi. NIL has suppressed the facts and presented that it has always been importing the product under consideration. However, Bengal Energy Limited has supplied substantial volumes to NIL in the past. Further, NIL has procured various sizes, including that upto 80 mm from Bengal Energy Limited. Since the company still operates with the same furnace, the claim that it can use only 20-40 mm is incorrect. xxvii. NIL shifted to importing the product under consideration only due to availability of dumped prices. NIL has admitted that it is getting the product at prices ₹ 10,000 per MT below the price of the domestic industry. Exclusion of such product for NIL will provide undue benefit to NIL and it will become more competitive than other users as it will lead to undue savings of ₹ 1,250 crores over 5 years. xxviii. There is no technical requirement of 20-40 mm sizes which is evident from the fact that NIL has imported various sizes including 20-50 mm and 25-50 mm. xxix. NIL has imported more than 50% of its total imports from Poland which is not a subject country. xxx. As opposed to the submissions by NIL, there is no technical term such as "Micro Blast Furnace". The term "Mini Blast Furnace" is used for smaller blast furnaces. The domestic industry has been regularly supplying to mini blast furnaces in India. xxxi. The domestic industry supplies 10-30 mm product to ferroalloy industry. Since 10-30 mm size is smaller than 20-40 mm, there is no reason why the Indian industry will not be able to supply such product. xxxii. NIL has submitted that domestic industry charges higher price for smaller sizes due to generation of coke breeze and fines, however, the same is not correct. The domestic industry does not charge higher prices for 10-30 mm coke as compared to blast furnace coke. xxxiii. The other interested parties have failed to show that the parameters identified lead to material change in the cost of production which require formulation of PCN based on such parameters. xxxiv. Selling price cannot be considered for determining PCNs as the same varies based on factors such as demand-supply situation, quantity of purchase by the users, month of purchase, payment terms, delivery schedule, spot vs. contractual purchases, cost of production etc. xxxv. About 90% of the cost of production for the subject goods constitutes raw material, that is, coking coal. Cost on account of coal or utilities does not vary due to parameters such as moisture content, tumbler strength (M40), CSR, and CRI. Thus, there is no need for devising PCN based on such parameters. xxxvi. The cost of production of the subject goods does not vary more than 5% for ash content below 13%. The cost of production does not vary more than 5% for ash content between 13% and 18%. There is a variation in cost of production between subject goods with ash content above and below 13%. xxxvii. There is variation in cost of production for breeze coke, nut coke and met coke for blast furnace application. xxxviii. Applications cannot be a basis for consideration of PCN as the product involved is the same and there are no differences in the parameters leading to change in cost of production. C.3. Examination by the Authority 7. The product under consideration in the present investigation is low ash metallurgical coke with ash content below 18%. The Authority notes that the other interested parties have requested exclusion of the following products from the scope of the product under consideration. i. Met Coke with ash content 12% or below. ii. Coke breeze and coke fines iii. Nut Coke iv. Coke with size 30-50 mm 8. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has provided evidence that it has produced and sold the abovementioned identical products in the merchant market. Since the domestic industry has produced and sold the like article in the domestic market during the period of investigation, the abovementioned products are not being excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. 9. The domestic industry has submitted that the desired characteristics in the subject goods including different ash content, tumbler strength or micum content (M40), coke reactivity index (CRI), coke strength after reduction (CSR) and phosphorous content can be achieved by merely using the right quality of coking coal. The production process does not undergo a change in order to change the technical parameters of the subject goods. The Authority notes that none of the other interested parties have provided any evidence to the contrary. 10. With regard to exclusion requested by the other interested parties for ultra-low phosphorous coke irrespective of size and application, the Authority notes that the said product is used only for ferroalloy application. The domestic industry has submitted that the ferroalloy manufacturers require met coke with size upto 30 mm. The domestic industry has further, submitted that due to commercial considerations, it does not manufacture ULP coke for ferroalloy application. It has also been submitted that in order to produce ULP coke only the right quality of coal is required and there is no need to change the production process. As per evidence on record, the said product has been manufactured by the domestic industry. However, the domestic industry has agreed for exclusion of ULP coke of size upto 30 mm and for ferroalloy applications. It is noted that in case of exclusion of ULP coke irrespective of size and application, other users may shift to imports of ULP coke since it is likely to be cheaper than the other types of met coke post imposition of anti-dumping duty. Thus, the Authority has restricted exclusion of ULP coke only upto the size of 30 mm when imported for use in ferroalloy applications. 11. With regard to the submissions by the domestic industry that ULP coke should be considered with phosphorous content upto 0.01%. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has provided website extracts of one of the domestic producers which shows that ULP coke has been classified as that having phosphorous content upto 0.01%. It is noted that the scope of product under consideration considered in the initiation notification excludes ULP coke with phosphorous content upto 0.03% with size upto 30 mm for use in ferroalloy manufacturing. Since restriction of phosphorous content upto 0.01% will lead to enhancement of product scope, the same is not being considered for the purpose of the present investigation. 12. With regard to the submissions that coke breeze and coke fines should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration as the said products are by-products and were excluded in safeguard investigation, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has produced coke breeze and coke fines during the period of investigation. There is no legal bar for considering a different product under consideration from one investigation to another. As per consistent practice of the Authority, a fresh examination has been made for the scope of product under consideration for the purpose of the present investigation. Since the domestic industry has produced and sold coke breeze and coke fines during the period of investigation, it has been considered within the scope of the product under consideration. 13. With regard to exclusion of the subject goods for corex application, the Authority notes that the other interested parties have not provided any technical parameters showing difference between the product produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries. The other interested parties have submitted that the said product is of size 10-50 mm. The domestic industry has submitted that there is no difference in the subject goods used for blast furnace application and corex application. The Authority notes that, as per evidence on record, the domestic industry has manufactured met coke with size 10-50 mm during the period of investigation. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to exclude met coke for corex application from the scope of the product under consideration. 14. With regard to exclusion of lump coke and small lump coke, the domestic industry has submitted that the other interested parties have claimed the technical parameters of the said product confidential. The Authority notes that the other interested parties have submitted that the said product is used for blast furnace application. Since the domestic industry has produced and sold the subject goods for blast furnace application, the domestic industry has produced commercially and technically substitutable product to the product being imported from the subject countries. Since the domestic industry has offered like article in the domestic market, the exclusion request for lump coke and small lump coke is not being considered. 15. With regard to exclusion of subject goods with micum index of 89 and above, the Authority that as per the evidence on record, the domestic industry has produced the subject goods with micum index as high as ***%. The other interested parties have failed to substantiate that the subject goods with high micum index cannot be substituted with the subject goods produced by the domestic industry. Thus, the request for exclusion of product under consideration with high micum index is not being considered. 16. With regard to exclusion of product under consideration with CSR higher than 70% and CRI less than 20%, the domestic industry has submitted that there is no demand for the said product in India and the said product can be manufactured by changing the raw material mix. The domestic industry has also provided a test report of one of the applicants showing that it has produced the subject goods with CSR higher than 70% and CRI less than 20%. However, it has been stated that the said producer has not been able to sell such product in the domestic market due to lack of demand. Thus, the Authority has not considered the request for exclusion of CSR higher than 70% and CRI less than 20%. 17. The Authority notes that Narsingh Ispat Limited (“NIL”) has requested for registration as an interested party in the present investigation as it consumes met coke with size 20-40 mm. The domestic industry has submitted that the said request has been filed at a belated stage and should not be accepted. The Authority notes that NIL has requested to be registered as an interested party at a belated stage. However, the Authority has registered NIL as no prejudice will be caused to the interest of any interested party including the domestic industry by registration of NIL as an interested party in the present investigation. 18. With regard to the submissions that NIL has not responded to IQR / UQR in the present investigation, the Authority notes that the parties have filed submissions, which have been considered in the present case. Even where a party does not file a response, the Authority shall consider the submissions made by them during the investigation. 19. NIL has requested exclusion of coke with size 20-40 mm from the scope of the product under consideration. It has been submitted that such size is specifically used by pig iron manufacturers having mini blast furnaces and the Indian industry does not provide such size in significant quantity to fulfil the demand in India. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has submitted that in order to produce coke with 20-40 mm size, the only requirement is crushing and screening of the product. Crushing and screening is not the main part of the production process. Further, as per evidence on record, the Indian industry has produced and sold subject goods with sizes 2 mm to 200+ mm in the domestic market. 20. The Authority further notes that the communications provided by the domestic industry shows that the product with 20-40 mm size and specifications desired by NIL has been offered by Jindal Coke Limited and Nilachal Carbo Metalliks Limited. Further, the following producers have furnished declarations expressing their capacity and willingness to supply the said product to NIL. i. Aqua Terra Coke & Energy Ltd ii. Bengal Energy Limited iii. Jindal Coke Limited iv. Krishna Coke Private Limited v. Mahalakshmi Group vi. Nilachal Carbo Metaliks Limited vii. SU Mangala Coke Private Limited viii. Tamil Nadu Coke & Power Limited ix. United Coke Private Limited x. VISA Coke Limited 21. With regard to the submission of non-availability of 20-40 mm product in India, the Authority notes that NIL has itself submitted that it has procured certain quantities of the said product from domestic manufacturers in India. Further, as per evidence on record, one of the applicant domestic producers, Bengal Energy Limited, has supplied the said product to NIL in the past. The Authority further notes that procurement of NIL from Bengal Energy Limited was not limited to 20-40 mm and it has procured various sizes. 22. NIL has submitted that the domestic industry cannot provide lower sizes of coke and 20-40 mm produced by the domestic industry is only for captive consumption. The Authority notes that as per evidence on record the domestic industry has produced and supplied nut coke on regular basis. Nut coke is of the size 10-30 mm which is lower than the size of coke requested by NIL. Further, the Authority also notes that only one of the companies out of 9 applicant domestic producers captively consumes the product under consideration. The other domestic producers produce only for the merchant market. 23. With regard to the submissions that there is no technical requirement for 20-40 mm coke by NIL, the Authority notes that as per the evidence on record, NIL has purchased various sizes of met coke and has not restricted to 20-40 mm sizes. Further, the domestic industry has provided the subject goods to NIL in the past and NIL has procured various sizes from the domestic industry. 24. NIL has submitted that it requires coke with ash content below 13% and the domestic producers do not supply the same. The Authority notes that as per the PCN wise data available on record, the domestic industry has produced and sold met coke with ash content below 13% in substantial quantities during the period of investigation. 25. As regard the submissions that the domestic industry charges higher prices for lower sized coke, the Authority notes that there is no evidence on record regarding the same. Further, the domestic producers have provided a declaration that it does not charge higher prices. 26. A product can be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration only when such product is not produced and sold by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that as per the evidence on record, the domestic industry has offered the said product to NIL and has produced and sold the product to NIL. Further, NIL has itself submitted that it has procured the product from domestic manufacturers in India. Thus, there is no need for exclusion of 20-40 mm coke from the scope of the product under consideration. 27. The Authority further notes that, as per DG Systems data, approximately 50% imports by NIL have been made from Poland which is a non-subject country. NIL can continue importing the product at fair prices from non- subject country as well as procure the subject goods from subject countries at fair prices after payment of anti- dumping duty. 28. The Authority has considered the product scope for the purpose of the present investigation as that considered in the initiation notification. "Low Ash Metallurgical Coke that is, Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18% excluding ultra- low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content up to 0.030% with size upto 30 mm with 5% size tolerance for use in ferroalloy manufacturing" 29. The product under consideration is classified under Chapter 27 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under the HS Code 2704 0030. The product under consideration is also being imported under various other HS Codes including 2704 0010, 2704 0020, 2704 0030 and 2704 0090. The Customs classification is only indicative and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration in the present investigation. 30. The Authority notes that there are no significant differences in the product produced by the domestic industry and the goods imported from the subject countries. The product produced by the domestic industry and imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of physical & chemical properties, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The Authority notes that the two are technically and commercially substitutable. Therefore, for the purpose of the present investigation, the subject goods produced by the domestic industry in India are being treated as "like articles" to the subject goods being imported from the subject countries. 31. The other interested parties have submitted that parameters including CRI, CSR, Moisture Content and tumbler strength (M40) should be considered as PCN parameters. The Authority notes that there is no evidence on record that such parameters lead to change in cost of production for the subject goods. Hence, the same have not been considered as separate parameters. 32. With regard to the submission that PCN should be based on application of the product, the Authority notes that PCN cannot be devised based on application of the product. The domestic industry has submitted that the cost of production does not vary based on the application for the product as the same product is used for blast furnace application and corex application. The Authority has not considered such parameter for PCN in the present investigation. 33. The Authority notes that as per evidence on record, the cost of production of the subject goods varies based on ash content above 13% and below 13%. The domestic industry has provided evidence showing that the cost of production does not vary substantially depending on different ash contents below 13% and the variation exists only between ash content above and below 13%. Accordingly, the same has been considered as a PCN parameter for the present investigation. 34. With regard to size of coke, the Authority notes that none of the other interested parties have provided any evidence showing difference in cost of production. It is further noted that while the domestic industry has submitted that the separate PCNs should be formed for coke with size below 10 mm, 10-30 mm and above 30mm, the evidence provided by the domestic industry regarding variation in cost of production based on size demonstrates substantial variation in cost of production of met coke with size below 10 mm and above 10 mm. However, the Authority notes that the cost difference between size between 10-20 mm and above 30 mm is not substantial. Thus, the Authority has considered PCN based on size upto 10 mm and above 10 mm. 35. The following PCN has been finalised for the present investigation. PCN Criteria | Parameter | Code description | Code sign ---------------|-------------|-------------------|----------- Ash content | Low Ash | Less than 13% | LA | Medium Ash | More than 13% | MA Size | Coke fine/breeze | Size upto10 mm | CF | Others | Size above 10 mm | OT D. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY & STANDING D.1. Submissions by the other interested parties 36. The submissions of the other interested parties with regard to the scope of the domestic industry and standing are as follows: i. The initiation notification does not contain objective analysis to determine whether the present case qualifies as that involving fragmented industry. Such determination is prerequisite for filing application under Trade Notice 09/2021. ii. The Authority has neither clarified that the 8 domestic producers considered for economic analysis have been sampled nor clarified an intent to conduct sampling in future. iii. The 8 sampled producers should have provided Format VI-1 to VI-5. iv. The 8 producers have failed to provide information as per Annexure 1 of Trade Notice 09/2021. v. While the applicant had identify Jindal Coke Limited as an importer of the product under consideration, the Authority in notification of initiation stated that the applicant domestic producers have not imported the product under consideration into India. D.2. Submissions by the Domestic Industry 37. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to scope of the domestic industry and standing are as follows: i. The application has been filed by the Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association on behalf of the domestic industry. The following members of the association have provided data for the purpose of the present investigation. 1. Bhatia Coke and Energy Limited (Aquaterra Coke & Energy Limited), 2. BLA Coke Private Limited, 3. Pawanputra ECoke Private Limited 4. Saurashtra Fuels Private Limited, 5. SU Mangala Coke Private Limited 6. United Coke Private Limited, and 7. Vedanta MALCO Energy Limited ii. In India, met coke is either produced as an intermediate in manufacturing of steel or is produced as a product for production and sale in the market or is partly produced for sale and partly consumed in- house. iii. 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, met coke is a raw material for them and not a product for sale and are insulated from the merchant market situation. iv. The steel manufacturers do not specify met coke as a product on their website. v. Captive producers should not be considered for determining the scope of the domestic industry as done in the previous investigations on imports of the subject goods into India. The Tribunal in Pig Iron Mfrs. Assocn. Vs. Designated Authority upheld the findings issued by the Authority and held that steel producers which produce for captive consumption should not be considered as a part of the domestic industry. vi. The domestic industry has sent communication to all domestic producers to confirm their capacities, production and sales. Since there is no publicly available information with regard to Indian production of the subject goods, the Authority may approach the domestic producers to verify the estimates provided by the applicant. vii. A number of producers have filed support letters post communication sent by the Authority. viii. Shree Electromelts Limited and Bengal Energy Limited have clarified that they have imported the product under consideration from the subject countries during the period of investigation. ix. Post filing of application, Jindal Coke Limited has filed detailed injury data and requested to be considered as part of the domestic industry. x. None of the applicant domestic producers are related to the exporters of subject goods in the subject countries or importers of the subject goods in India. xi. Post initiation of investigation, Bengal Energy Limited has filed detailed injury data and requested that it may be considered as part of the domestic industry. xii. The applicant domestic producers account for major proportion of the total domestic production in India and hence, constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b). D.3. Examination by the Authority 38. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines domestic industry as follows: "(b) "domestic industry" means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry' may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers. Provided that in exceptional circumstances referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, the domestic industry in relation to the article in question shall be deemed to comprise two or more competitive markets and the producers within each of such market a separate industry, if - (i) the producers within such a market sell all or almost all of their production of the article in question in that market; and (ii) the demand in the market is not in any substantial degree supplied by producers of the said article located elsewhere in the territory;” 39. The application for initiation of the present investigation has been filed by Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association (“IMCOM”) on behalf of the domestic industry under Trade Notice 09/2021. The following members of the applicant association have provided injury data as per Annexure 1 to the Trade Notice 09/2021. 1. Bhatia Coke and Energy (Aquaterra Coke & Energy Limited), 2. Bengal Energy Limited 3. BLA Coke Private Limited 4. Jindal Coke Limited 5. Pawanputra ECoke Private Limited 6. Saurashtra Fuels Private Limited 7. SU Mangala Coke Private Limited 8. United Coke Private Limited, and 9. Vedanta MALCO Energy Limited 40. The Authority notes that in India, met coke is either produced as an intermediate in the manufacturing process of steel or is sale in the merchant market or is partly produced for sale and partly for captive consumption. The applicant has submitted that there are at least 17 producers of the product producing met coke captively. However, such producers should not be considered as producers of met coke for determination of scope of the domestic industry in the present investigation, for the following reasons. 1. Producers engaged in manufacturing met coke as a part of steel making do not recognize it as a product. 2. It is only an input required by these producers for production of steel and is an intermediate in such production process. 3. Websites of the steel producers do not report met coke as a "product". 4. The steel manufacturers do not compete in the met coke market either with imports or with domestic producers. 5. The captive producers are insulated from the market situations in the met coke market. 6. The steel manufacturers are actually consumers of the subject goods, rather than manufacturers of the same. 7. Met coke is a raw material for these producers and not a product meant for sale. 41. The Authority notes that in India, there are two competitive markets for the product under consideration. The first set of market comprises of captive producers of the subject goods which produce met coke as part of steel manufacturing process. It is noted that these manufacturers do not compete in the domestic merchant market as they usually do not sell met coke in the market. For such producers, met coke is an intermediate product for production of steel and such manufacturers are actually consumers of the product under consideration. Some of such manufacturers even purchase coke from the merchant market or import the same into India. The second market comprises of manufacturers whose final product is met coke. These producers manufacture the subject goods for selling in the merchant market. Such producers compete in the merchant market inter se as well as with the imports being made into India. For the purpose of the present investigation, the Authority has considered these as separate competitive markets and the producers within each of such market are a separate industry. Accordingly, the production of captive producers is not being considered for determination of total Indian production for the purpose of defining the domestic industry in the present investigation. 42. The Authority further notes that in the previous investigations on imports of the product under consideration, the Authority has considered merchant market and captive market as separate competitive markets and producers within each of these markets have been considered to constitute separate industry. The Tribunal, in case of, Pig Iron Mfrs. Assocn. Vs. Designated Authority upheld the findings issued by the Authority and held that steel producers comprise of a separate market. 43. The Authority notes that at the time of filing the application for initiation of the present anti-dumping investigation into imports of subject goods from the subject countries, the following members of the applicant association provided data as per Annexure 1 of Trade Notice 09/2021. 1. Bhatia Coke and Energy (Aquaterra Coke & Energy Limited), 2. BLA Coke Private Limited 3. Pawanputra ECoke Private Limited 4. Saurashtra Fuels Private Limited 5. SU Mangala Coke Private Limited 6. United Coke Private Limited, and 7. Vedanta MALCO Energy Limited 44. The Authority notes that none of the abovementioned applicant domestic producers have imported the subject goods into India during the period of investigation. Further, the said producers are not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or any importers in India. 45. The applicant further submitted that the following domestic producers have imported the product under consideration, and thus, should not be considered as part of domestic industry. 1. Shree Arihant Trade Links Private Limited 2. Shreeji Coke and Energy Private Limited 3. Motherson Consolidate 4. Bengal Energy Limited 5. Mahalakshmi Ennor Coke and Power Private Limited 6. Mahalakshmi Wellman Fuels LLP 7. Jindal Coke Limited 8. Visa Coke Limited 46. The Authority issued letters, dated 25th March 2025, to all domestic producers in India prior to initiation of the present investigation seeking information with regard to their capacities, production, sales, captive consumption and imports made by the producers during the injury period. The Authority also sought information on whether the producers support, oppose or are neutral to the application filed for initiation of the investigation. The following producers supported the application and filed support letters. 1. Bengal Energy Limited 2. Carbon Edge Industries Limited 3. Coromandel Met Coke Industries 4. Harsh Fuels Private Limited 5. Jindal Coke Limited 6. Narayani Coke Private Limited 7. Nilachal Carbo Metalicks Limited 8. Shree Electromelts Limited 9. Tirupati Traders 10. Tamilnadu Coke and Power Limited 11. Usha Fuels Private Limited 12. Varah Ventures (Formerly known as Girdhari Coke) 47. The Authority notes that prior to initiation, Jindal Coke Limited has filed data as per Annexure 1 of Trade Notice 09/2021 and requested the Authority to consider it as part of the domestic industry. Since complete data as per Trade Notice 09/2021 has been provided by Jindal Coke Limited, the Authority has considered it as a part of the domestic industry in the present investigation. It has been further clarified by Jindal Coke Limited, that it has not imported the product under consideration into India from the subject countries during the period of investigation and it is not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or any importer in India. 48. Post initiation of the investigation, Bengal Energy Limited has filed data as per Annexure 1 of Trade Notice 09/2021 and has requested that it may be considered as part of the domestic industry for the purpose of the present investigation. The Authority notes that Bengal Energy Limited has imported the subject goods from the subject countries during the period of investigation. The producer has submitted that it imported only a single vessel from the subject countries during the injury period and is not a regular importer of the product under consideration. Further, the product imported has been captively consumed and not sold in the domestic market. The Authority further notes that the imports by Bengal Energy Limited are negligible as compared to subject imports, domestic production in India and demand in India. Bengal Energy is not related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or any importer in India. Accordingly, the Authority has considered Bengal Energy Limited as part of the domestic industry for the purpose of the present investigation. Particulars | Unit | POI ------------------------------|------|------- Imports by Bengal Energy Limited | MT | *** Subject imports | MT | 31,29,282 Domestic production | MT | 23,85,833 Demand | MT | 62,87,216 Imports in relation to | | Subject imports | % | <2% Domestic production | % | <2% Demand | % | <1% 49. As per the information on record, the following producers have imported the subject goods from the subject countries in India during the period of investigation. SN | Producer | Production | Imports | Imports in relation | | | | to production ---|----------|------------|---------|-------------------- 1. | Bengal Energy Limited | *** | *** | 5-15% 2. | Mahalakshmi Ennor Coke and Power | *** | *** | 70-80% | Private Limited | | | 3. | Mahalakshmi Wellman Fuels LLP | *** | *** | 150-160% 4. | Motherson Consolidate | *** | *** | 5-15% 5. | Shree Arihant Trade Links Private Limited | *** | *** | 50-60% 6. | Shree Electromelts Limited | *** | *** | 15-25% 7. | Shreeji Coke and Energy Private Limited | *** | *** | 0-10% 8. | Visa Coke Limited | *** | *** | 20-30% 50. The Authority notes that since imports by Bengal Energy Limited, Motherson Consolidate and Shreeji Coke and Energy Private Limited are not significant in relation to their production, total production in India and demand in India, such producers have been considered eligible to constitute domestic industry in the present investigation. 51. The Authority notes that the domestic producers considered as part of the domestic industry in the present investigation account for 72% of the total eligible Indian production and along with supporters account for 85% of the total eligible domestic production. Since the domestic producers account for major proportion of total domestic production in India, the Authority provisionally holds that the said domestic producers constitute domestic industry under Rule 2(b). 52. The Authority has undertaken sampling of the domestic producers in the present investigation. The following three domestic producers have been sampled based on the largest production volumes. The said producers have provided all information relevant as specified under Trade Notice 05/2021 for the present investigation. a. Bengal Energy Limited b. Bhatia Coke and Energy Limited (Aquaterra Coke & Energy Limited) c. Jindal Coke Limited E. CONFIDENTIALITY E.1. Submission by the other interested parties 53. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to confidentiality. i. The transaction-wise import data has not been provided by the applicant despite being requested by the other interested parties. ii. Annexure II of Trade Notice No. 09/2021 sets forth certain requirements, one of which is a complete list of members of Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association. A non-confidential version of this list has not been made available to the interested parties by the domestic industry. iii. The applicant has claimed the normal value calculations confidential in entirety and have not provided any non-confidential summary for the same. Thus, the other interested parties have been unable to verify the accuracy of the information submitted. iv. While the applicants have submitted that Jindal Coke Limited is an importer of the product under consideration, the Authority has noted that it has not imported the product under consideration. In case, any clarification was filed by the applicant, the same was not circulated to the other interested parties. v. The applicant has claimed excessive confidentiality as actual figures for PBIT have not been provided. Further, calculation for non-injurious price has been not provided. E.2. Submissions by the Domestic Industry 54. The submissions made by the domestic industry with regard to confidentiality are as follows: i. A number of foreign producers have claimed the names of traders and exporters which have exported their product to India confidential. ii. A number of producers / exporters have claimed excessive confidentiality as they have not disclosed the distribution and marketing channel as well as details about related companies, nature of expenses claimed as adjustment, production process and names of raw material. iii. Product catalogue and brochure as well as list of products sold which is routinely shared with the customers have been claimed confidential. iv. A number of parties have not provided justification for confidentiality in accordance with Trade Notice 01/2013. v. A number of producers and exporters have claimed company affiliations, shareholding and names of producers of the product exported by them as confidential. vi. Details and nature of post invoicing discount given has been claimed confidential. vii. The other interested parties have not adhered to the requirement of Trade Notice 10/2018. E.3. Examination by the Authority 55. Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules provides as follows: "7. Confidential Information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, subrule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the interested parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information." 56. The information provided by all the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claims. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted and such information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to the other interested parties. Wherever possible, the parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis. 57. A list of registered interested parties was uploaded on the DGTR's website along with the request therein to all of them to email the non-confidential version of their submissions to all the other interested parties. 58. As regard the submissions that the domestic industry has not shared transaction wise import data, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has relied upon market intelligence to provided information with regard to imports of subject goods in India. A non-confidential summary of the same has been shared with all interested parties. In any case, no prejudice is caused to the interest of any interested party by not sharing transaction wise information as the Authority has relied upon DG Systems data and not the data provided by the domestic industry. 59. The other interested parties have submitted that a non-confidential version of list of members of the association has not been provided by the domestic industry. Further, the domestic industry has claimed that the other interested parties have not provided the distribution channel and adjustments claimed for fair comparison. The Authority notes that the domestic industry as well as the other interested parties have claimed excessive confidentiality. The Authority has directed all interested parties including the domestic industry vide email dated 24th October 2025 to disclose the said information. 60. With regard to the submissions that the domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality with regard to actual figures of PBIT and normal value calculations, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has submitted that normal value has been determined based on cost of production of the domestic industry. Since cost of production is confidential business proprietary information, the same has been claimed confidential. The Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims in this regard. The domestic industry has further submitted that the information with regard to profitability of the domestic industry is confidential business proprietary information disclosure of which will provide competitive advantage to the competitors and provide an edge for negotiation of prices to the users and hence, claimed confidential. The Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims in this regard. 61. As regard the submissions that the domestic industry has not shared the clarification based on which the Authority has noted that Jindal Coke Limited has not imported the subject goods in India, the Authority notes that Jindal Coke Limited has filed support letter in the present investigation post filing of the petition. The non- confidential version of such letter has been circulated to all interested parties. Jindal Coke Limited has stated that it has not imported the product under consideration into India during the period of investigation from the subject countries. F. MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS F.1. Submissions by the other interested parties 62. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the other interested parties. i. The petition filed is deficient as it does not contain non-injurious price, injury margin, formats VI-1 to VI-5, Annexure I for each producer as well as actual figures for PBIT. ii. There is no need for a preliminary findings in the present investigation as the domestic industry has earned cash profits which do not reflect a situation of grave injury to the domestic industry. There is no evidence of intensified imports post initiation of the present investigation. iii. In accordance with the Manual of Operating Procedures a provisional duty may be considered if there arises an 'urgent need' for protection of the domestic industry from injury on account of intensified dumped imports. iv. There is an overlap of injury period between the safeguard investigation and the anti-dumping investigation. The injury caused to the domestic industry will be addressed by the quantitative restrictions in force. v. The initiation of the present investigation is without any basis as the applicants have not presented substantive evidence to prove condition of initiation for an anti-dumping investigations. vi. The applicants are taking undue advantage of the trade remedial process. The product under consideration is currently subjected to safeguard measures and was previously subject to anti-dumping duty. F.2. Submissions made by the Domestic Industry 63. The following miscellaneous submissions have been made by the domestic industry. i. The import price has continued to decline even post the period of investigation especially from Indonesia. ii. There is a need for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty as the decline in prices post period of investigation has caused significant injury to the Indian industry. F.3. Examination by the Authority 64. With regard to the contention that the application filed is deficient, the Authority notes that the application has been filed under Trade Notice 09/2021 by the association of domestic producers in India. The applicant domestic producers have provided data in form of Annexure 1 to Trade Notice 09/2021. As per the requirements of the Trade Notice, the applicant domestic producers are not required to file detailed information in form of Formats VI-1 to VI-5. The Authority has undertaken sampling of domestic producers in the present investigation and the detailed formats VI-1 to VI-5 have been filed by the sampled producers. Based on the detailed formats filed, the Authority has determined the non-injurious price as well as the injury margin. 65. The Authority does not find merit in the contention of the other interested parties that the present investigation was initiated without any basis. The Authority notes that the domestic industry had submitted prima facie evidence of dumping, injury and causal link in the application filed. Only after examining and being satisfied with regard to the prima facie evidence of dumping, injury and causal link, the Authority proceeded to initiate the present investigation. 66. With regard to the submissions that there is no justification for imposition of provisional duties, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping of subject imports into India. The domestic industry has incurred financial losses, cash losses and recorded a negative return on capital employed in the period of investigation. The domestic industry has submitted that the import price has declined even post period of investigation causing intensified injury to the domestic industry. In such a case, there is an immediate need for remedying the material injury being caused to the domestic industry due to dumping of subject imports from the subject countries. 67. With regard to the contention that the applicants are taking undue advantage of trade remedial measures, the Authority notes that in the past the subject goods have been subject to anti-dumping duty. The Authority recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty after examining and determining that the producers in the subject countries were dumping the subject goods in India due to which the domestic industry suffered material injury. In each of the findings, the Authority has come to a conclusion that the exporters have engaged in unfair trade practice of dumping. Accordingly, the anti-dumping duty had been recommended. Further, the safeguard measures were recommended after concluding that the imports increased in such quantities that the same cause serious injury to the domestic industry. 68. As regard the contention that the injury period of present investigation overlaps the injury period in the safeguard investigation, the Authority notes that the period of investigation in the present investigation is October 2023 - September 2024. The most recent period considered in the safeguard investigation was April 2022 - March 2023. The performance of the domestic industry considered in the present investigation is much worse than the performance of the domestic industry in the safeguard investigation. Further, the Authority has determined dumping only for the period of investigation. In such a case, overlap of the period does not change the merits of the present investigation. G. MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT, NORMAL VALUE, EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN G.1. Submissions by the other interested parties 69. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the market economy treatment, normal value, export price and dumping margin. i. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient explanation that it was appropriate to proceed with construction of the normal value. G.2. Submissions made by the Domestic Industry 70. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to market economy treatment, normal value, export price and dumping margin: i. China PR should be treated as a non-market economy in accordance with Article 15(a)(i) of China's accession protocol, and the normal value should be determined in accordance with Para 7 of Annexure I to the Rules. ii. The applicant does not have access to selling price or cost in an appropriate market economy third country as it is not available in the public domain. Imports into India cannot be considered as goods are majorly being dumped in India. Imports other than Poland are negligible and hence, cannot be used for normal value determination. iii. Majority of imports from Poland are by Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India under a long-term agreement. Therefore, such price is influenced and not based on demand-supply principles. Furthermore, the product under consideration has been imported under several different codes and hence, exports from such countries to other countries cannot be considered. iv. The normal value for China PR has been determined on price payable in India, based on cost of production of the domestic industry duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. v. Since the price lists or commercial invoices for sales in the local market of other countries were not available to the applicant, the normal value has been determined on alternate basis. vi. Adjustments have been made with regard to ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, port expenses, bank charges, inland freight, credit costs and inventory carrying costs for determination of net export price. vii. The dumping margin is positive and significant. G.3. Examination by the Authority 71. Under section 9A(1)(c), the normal value in relation to an article means: "i) The comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article, when meant for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6), or ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either: (a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory or an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); (b) Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transshipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin." 72. The Authority notes that the following producers/exporters of the subject goods have filed exporter's questionnaire responses: i. BlueScope Steel Limited ii. China Risun Group (Hong Kong) Limited, Hong Kong iii. Hong Kong Jinteng Development Limited iv. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Japan v. Mitsubishi Corporation RTM Japan Ltd. vi. PT Detian Coking Indonesia vii. PT Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia viii. PT Risun Wei Shan Indonesia ix. Risun Marketing Limited x. Risun Materials Co., Limited (Japan) xi. Risun Weishan Engineering (Hainan) Limited, China 1. PT Detian Coking Indonesia 73. PT Detian Coking Indonesia (PT Detian) has claimed to have exported *** MT of the product under consideration to India directly during the period of investigation. 74. The Authority asked for supplemental information from the producer vide email dated 30th July 2025 and allowed time till 11th August 2025. The producer furnished a partial response on 27th August 2025 and supplemented the same on 18th September 2025. In its supplemental, the Authority specifically queried regarding the channel of distribution and whether all exporters forming part of channel have furnished a response. The producer did not confirm whether all exporters forming part of channel of distribution have furnished a response. Further, the producer declared that it has only directly exported to India. 75. The Authority thereafter further raised certain queries on 11th September 2025, seeking additional information, including sample invoices. The Authority examined the invoices submitted and the customer details provided in Appendix 3A. On perusal of the information, the Authority finds that the customers, to which PT Detian has sold, are not Indian entities. On the contrary, the sample invoices provided and the DG Systems data show that the customers reported are actually located in ***. 76. This shows that PT Detian has not exported the subject goods directly to India, as declared. On the contrary, the product under consideration has been exported to India through traders / exporters. That being the case, the complete channel of distribution for exports to India is not before the Authority. The Authority notes that specific directions were given in the questionnaire advising that where exports are made through an exporters, the exporter must furnish response to Part-I and Part-II, as well as Appendix 5. Instead of furnishing the required information, the producer has mis-declared that it only exported to India directly. Even upon a repeated query from the Authority in this regard, the producer did not place correct facts before the Authority. 77. In view of the same, the Authority provisionally finds that that the response filed by PT Detian does not provide adequate and accurate information for the calculation of dumping margin and injury margin. Further, traders constituting ***% of the exports to India have not participated. Therefore, the Authority has provisionally not allowed an individual duty rate for the producer. 2. PT Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia 78. PT Kinrui New Energy Technologies Indonesia (“PT Kinrui") claimed that it has exported *** MT of the product under consideration to India, out of which *** MT has been exported directly. Further, the producer has also sold the subject goods to related trader, *** which has eventually exported the subject goods to India. PT Kinrui → Unrelated customers in India PT Kinrui → *** → Unrelated customers in India 79. The Authority asked for supplemental information from the producer vide email dated 30th July 2025 and allowed time till 11th August 2025. The producer furnished a partial response on 27th August 2025 and supplemented the same on 18th September 2025. In its supplemental, the Authority specifically queried regarding the channel of distribution and whether all exporters forming part of channel have furnished a response. The producer did not confirm whether all exporters forming part of channel of distribution have furnished a response. Further, the producer reiterated that it had exported the subject goods to India through the aforesaid channels of distribution. 80. The Authority thereafter further raised certain queries on 11th September 2025, seeking additional information. The Authority examined the information submitted by the producer, the invoices submitted and the customer details provided in Appendix 3A. On perusal of the information, the Authority finds that many of the customers, to which PT Detian has sold, are not Indian entities. On the contrary, the sample invoices provided and the DG Systems data show that many of the customers reported are actually located in other countries, such as *** and ***. It appears that such traders constitute more than ***% of the exports to India. 81. This shows that PT Kinrui has not only exported the subject goods directly and through related trader to India, as declared. On the contrary, the product under consideration has also been exported to India through traders / exporters. That being the case, the complete channel of distribution for exports to India is not before the Authority. The Authority notes that specific directions were given in the questionnaire advising that where exports are made through an exporter, the exporter must furnish response to Part-I and Part-II, as well as Appendix 5. Instead of furnishing the required information, the producer has mis-declared that it only exported to India directly and through related exporter. Even upon a repeated query from the Authority in this regard, the producer did not place correct and complete facts before the Authority. This casts a doubt on the veracity of information provided by the producer. 82. In view of the same, the Authority provisionally finds that that the response filed by PT Kinrui does not permit adequate and accurate information for the calculation of dumping margin and injury margin. Further, traders making significant exports to India have not participated. Therefore, the Authority has provisionally not allowed an individual duty rate for the producer. 3. PT Risun Wei Shan Indonesia 83. As per the response filed by PT Risun Wei Shan Indonesia (“Risun Wei Shan") has exported *** MT of the product under consideration to India. The producer has not exported the product under consideration directly to India. The subject goods have been sold for exports to India to related entities namely, ***, ***, *** and ***. *** has further sold the subject goods to unrelated trader, namely, *** which has further sold to ***. The eventual exporter of the subject goods produced by Risun Wei Shan is Risun HK. Risun Wei Shan → Risun HK (related) → Unrelated customers in India Risun Wei Shan → *** → Risun HK (related) → Unrelated customers in India Risun Wei Shan → *** → Risun HK (related) → Unrelated customers in India Risun Wei Shan → *** → *** → Risun HK (related) → Unrelated customers in India 84. The Authority asked for supplemental information from the producer vide email dated 30th July 2025 and allowed time till 11th August 2025. In its supplemental, the Authority specifically queried regarding the channel of distribution and whether all exporters forming part of channel have furnished a response. The producer did not specifically confirm whether all exporters forming part of channel of distribution have furnished a response. Further, the producer reiterated its claim that it had exported to India through the aforesaid channels of distribution. The Authority thereafter further raised certain queries on 11th September 2025, seeking additional information. Therefore, as per the producer, all exports to India have been made through Risun HK, to unrelated customers in India. 85. The Authority examined the information submitted by the producer and the customer details provided in Appendix 3A, and compared the same to DG Systems data. On perusal of the information, the Authority finds that many of the customers, to which Risun HK has sold, are not Indian entities. On the contrary, the DG Systems data show that many of the customers reported are actually located in other countries, such as ***, *** and ***. It appears that such traders constitute more than ***% of the exports to India. 86. This shows that the goods produced by Risun Wei Shan have not only been exported through Risun HK directly to customers in India. On the contrary, the product under consideration has also been exported to India through traders / exporters. That being the case, the complete channel of distribution for exports to India is not before the Authority. The Authority notes that specific directions were given in the questionnaire advising that where exports are made through an exporter, the exporter must furnish response to Part-I and Part-II, as well as Appendix 5. Instead of furnishing the required information, the producer has mis-declared its channel of distribution to claim that Risun HK has exported to customer in India. Even upon a repeated query from the Authority in this regard, the producer and its related did not place correct and complete facts before the Authority. 87. It is further noted that in Appendix 3A, Risun HK did not give the complete names of the customers. It appears that the identifiers which would have permitted the Authority to identify that the customer is not located in India, such as “***”, “***”, “***”, and “***” have been removed. For instance, for sales to “***”, located in ***, have been written as “***”. Likewise, sales to “***”, located in ***, have been reported as sales to “***”. This casts a doubt on the veracity of information provided by the producer. 88. In view of the same, the Authority provisionally finds that the response filed by Risun Wei Shan does not permit adequate and accurate information for the calculation of dumping margin and injury margin. Further, traders constituting more than ***% of the exports to India have not participated. Therefore, the Authority provisionally does not allow an individual duty rate for the producer. 4. BlueScope Limited 89. As per response filed by BlueScope Limited (BlueScope), it has exported *** MT to India, of which *** MT has been exported directly. The balance has been exported through two traders, *** and ***. BlueScope → Unrelated customers in India BlueScope → *** BlueScope → *** 90. The Authority notes that BlueScope Limited has exported significant volumes of the product under consideration, equivalent to almost *** of the total volume, through unrelated traders. The unrelated traders have not cooperated in the present investigation by filing a questionnaire response. Since, the information in respect of significant exports to India is not available, the Authority provisionally finds that an individual dumping margin and injury margin cannot be allowed to the producer. 5. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation 91. As per the response filed by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, it has exported *** MT of the product under consideration to India directly and through its related traders, namely, ***. *** has in turn exported the product under consideration to India directly and through a related party, ***. *** has further resold to unrelated trader, which has in turn exported to India. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation → *** → Unrelated customer in India Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation → *** → *** → Unrelated customer in India 92. While *** has participated in the present investigation, *** has failed to file a response and cooperate in the present investigation. The Authority notes that ***% exports have been made by ***, which has failed to participate in the present investigation. The Authority also notes that *** has filed the resale information of *** in its response. However, the same is not sufficient, as the Authority also requires additional information in Part I and Part II, including Appendix 5 to be filed by the related trader. The instructions of the Authority are clear that any other “any other non-producer related entities involved in export of the PUC are required to submit response in part I and part II along with Appendix-5”. Moreover, *** has in turn sold the product to an unrelated trading entity, and has not directly exported to India. Such unrelated trader has also not cooperated before the Authority. In light of the failure of the related party and the further trader to furnish a complete response, as required, the Authority provisionally finds that an individual dumping margin and injury margin cannot be allowed to the producer. 6. Determination of normal value and export price 93. Normal value for Australia None of the producers or exporters, barring BlueScope Limited, have participated in the present investigation and filed a response. As noted above, the response filed by BlueScope Limited cannot be considered for determination of individual margins. Accordingly, the Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for Australia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and addition of reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 94. Export price for Australia The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from Australia has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 95. Normal value for China PR Article 15 of the China's Accession Protocol to the WTO provides as follows: “Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following: In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: (i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; (ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China. The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector." 96. The applicant has cited and relied upon Article 15(a)(i) of China's Accession Protocol. The applicants have claimed that producers in China PR must be asked to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in their industry producing the like product under with regard to production and sale of the product under consideration. It has been stated by the applicant that in case the responding Chinese producers are not able to demonstrate that their cost and price information are market-driven, the normal value should be calculated in terms of provisions of Para 7 and 8 of Annexure-I to the Rules. 97. In the present case, no producer from China has participated in the investigation by furnishing a response. Accordingly, the normal value has been determined in accordance with paragraph 7 of Annexures I of the Rules which state as follows: "In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in the market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India or where it is not possible, or on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner, keeping in view the level of development of the country concerned and the product in question, and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of selection. Accounts shall be taken within time limits, where appropriate, of the investigation made in any similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without any unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments." 98. The applicant has claimed that the selling price or cost in appropriate market economy third country is not available. Further, price of imports into other countries cannot be considered as the imports are under various codes. Price of imports into India cannot be considered as the same are being dumped in India. Thus, the applicant has claimed that the normal value should be determined on the basis price payable in India. The other interested parties have not adduced any other basis, amongst that listed under paragraph 7 of Annexure I of the Rules, which may form basis of determination of normal value. The Authority therefore, determined normal value as per the price payable in India, based on cost of production of the applicant, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and reasonable profits. 99. Export price for China PR The Authority notes that none of the producers from China PR have filed exporter's questionnaire response. The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from China PR has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 100. Normal value for Colombia The Authority notes that none of the producers/ exporters from Colombia have filed exporter's questionnaire responses. In view of non-cooperation from all producers/ exporters in Colombia, the Authority has determined the normal value on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for Colombia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and addition of reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 101. Export price for Colombia The Authority notes that none of the producers/exporters from Colombia have filed exporter's questionnaire response. The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from Colombia has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 102. Normal value for Indonesia None of the producers or exporters, barring PT Detian, PT Kinrui and Risun Wei Shan, have participated in the present investigation and filed a response. As noted above, the responses filed by the said three producers cannot be considered for determination of individual margins. Accordingly, the Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for Indonesia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and addition of reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 103. Export price for Indonesia The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from Indonesia has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 104. Normal value for Japan None of the producers or exporters, barring Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, have participated in the present investigation and filed a response. As noted above, the response filed by Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation cannot be considered for determination of individual margins. Accordingly, the Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for Japan on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and addition of reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 105. Export price for Japan The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from Japan has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 106. Normal value for Russia The Authority notes that none of the producers/ exporters from Russia have filed exporter's questionnaire responses. In view of non-cooperation from all producers/ exporters in Russia, the Authority has determined the normal value on the basis of facts available in terms of Rule 6(8) of the Rules. The Authority has, therefore, constructed the normal value for Russia on the basis of cost of production in India, duly adjusted for selling, general and administrative expenses and addition of reasonable profits. The constructed normal value so determined is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. 107. Export price for Russia The export price for all non-cooperating producers and exporters from Russia has been determined based on facts available and the same is mentioned in the dumping margin table below. G.4. Dumping margin 108. Considering the normal value constructed as provided above, and export price as determined, the dumping margin determined for the subject countries is as follows: S.N. | Country of origin | Normal Value | Export Price | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin | Dumping Margin ----|-------------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|----------------|--------------- | | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (%) | (Range) A | Australia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25% B | China PR | *** | *** | *** | *** | 55-65% C | Colombia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40% D | Indonesia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40% E | Japan | *** | *** | *** | *** | 50-60% F. | Russia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 55-65% H. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK H.1. Submissions by the other interested parties 109. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to injury and causal link: i. Imports from Japan should not be cumulatively assessed with other subject countries particularly China and Indonesia, as imports from Japan have declined over the injury period, are much lower than imports from other subject countries and are priced higher. ii. Since the product produced by Nippon Coke and Engineering Co., Ltd. is of higher quality and not technically or commercially substitutable with that of the product produced by the domestic industry or imported from other subject countries, imports from Japan should not be cumulatively assessed. iii. While the capacity, sales volume and value has increased, the export sales have declined. The decline in profitability is due to decline in exports of the domestic industry. iv. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined due to expansion of capacities over the injury period. v. Since the domestic sales and production have also increased in tandem with increase in volume of imports, the domestic industry has not suffered any injury due to increase in imports from the subject countries. vi. The selling prices of the domestic industry have moved in line with the cost of sales through most of the injury period. Therefore, this shows absence of any price injury on account of imports from subject countries. vii. The import prices in India are based on international market prices of the product under consideration. viii. The applicant has not provided any information with respect to price undercutting for the first three years of the injury period. ix. The domestic industry has not suffered any material injury as the capacity, production and domestic sales of the domestic industry has increased. x. Jindal Coke Limited has reported significant profit margins and also improved capacity utilization. xi. The decline in profitability of the domestic industry is due to price fluctuations in upstream value chain of the product under consideration. xii. The domestic product is supplied via trucks while imports arrive in bulk shipments, therefore creating certain challenges in domestic supply and causing injury to the domestic industry. xiii. The decline in profitability of the domestic industry may be attributed to capacity expansions due to which the depreciation and interest costs have increased over the injury period. xiv. Bhatia Coke and Energy has been subject to insolvency proceedings in the injury period for non- payment of dues of about ₹ 125.9 crores to a consortium of banks. xv. The injury suffered by the domestic industry is due to own inefficiencies and not due to imports from subject countries. xvi. The injury to the domestic industry, if any, is due to imports from countries other than Japan. xvii. The injury to the domestic industry is due to reduction in MFN duty rates and tariff liberalization in FTA's with Indonesia, China, Australia and Japan. The injury to the domestic industry is only due to imports from such countries. xviii. The high depreciation and interest costs should be adjusted while assessing non-injurious price and injury claims of the domestic industry. H.2. Submissions made by the domestic industry 110. The following submissions have been made by the domestic industry with regard to the injury and causal link: i. Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate in the present case as all conditions of cumulation have been met. ii. The volume of imports has increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production and consumption in India over the injury period. iii. The subject imports account for majority of imports into India. iv. The subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. v. The landed price of the subject imports is below the selling price as well as the cost of sales of the domestic industry. vi. While both cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry have increased, the selling price has increased less than increase in cost of sales of the domestic industry. Thus, subject imports have suppressed the prices of the domestic industry. vii. While the capacity of the domestic industry has increased, the capacity utilization, production and sales of the domestic industry has declined over the injury period. viii. There is enough demand in the country for domestic industry to completely utilise its capacities, even then the production and sales of the domestic industry has declined. ix. The imports from subject countries account for half the market share in demand. The market share of the Indian industry as well as imports from other countries has declined over the injury period. x. Even though the domestic industry has compromised on profitability and sold the subject goods at losses, the inventories of the domestic industry have increased. xi. The domestic industry has suffered losses since 2022-23. While the profitability of the domestic industry recovered slightly in 2023-24 and the period of investigation, with an increase in landed price, the increase was not sufficient to recover to a profitable level. xii. The domestic industry has suffered cash losses in the period of investigation. xiii. The domestic industry has recorded a negative return on capital employed during the period of investigation. xiv. The ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has been hampered as it has incurred financial losses as well as cash losses in 2022-23, 2023-24 and the period of investigation. xv. The injury to the domestic industry is due to dumping of subject imports into India. None of the other known factors have caused injury to the domestic industry. H.3. Examination by the Authority 111. The Authority has examined the arguments and counterargument of the interested partied with regard to injury to the domestic industry. The analysis made by the Authority hereunder address the various submissions made by the interested parties. 112. With regard to the submissions that one of the domestic producers is under insolvency proceedings, the Authority notes that DGTR is not the right authority for such issues. The other interested parties may approach the relevant authority. 1. Cumulative assessment of injury 113. Article 3.3 of the WTO Agreement and Para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules provide that in case where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to anti-dumping investigation, the Authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, in case it determines that: i. The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two percent expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three percent (or more) of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three percent, the imports collectively account for more than seven percent of the import of like article, and ii. A cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic products. 114. The Authority notes that: i. The subject goods are being dumped into India from the subject countries. The margin of dumping from each of the subject countries is more that the de minimis limits as prescribed under the Rules. ii. The volume of imports from each of the subject countries is individually more that 3% of total volume of imports. iii. Cumulative assessment of the effects of import is appropriate as the imports from the subject countries are not only directing competing with the product offered by each of the subject countries but also the like article offered by the domestic industry in the Indian market. 115. In light of the above, the Authority considers it appropriate to assess the effect of dumped imports of the subject goods from Australia, China PR, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia on the domestic industry cumulatively. 116. With regard to the submissions that imports from Japan should be de-cumulated, the Authority notes that the volume of imports from Japan is more than 3% of total volume of imports, the dumping margin for producers in Japan is more than de-minimis and there is no evidence on record which establishes that such imports do not compete with imports from other subject countries or the product produced by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that while the producers from Japan have stated that the product produced by the domestic industry is not a like article to product exported by them, the Authority has not accepted the same as the evidence on record shows that the domestic industry has produced like article to such product. Thus, the Authority has considered cumulation of imports from all subject countries. 2. Volume Effect of Dumped Imports a. Assessment of demand/apparent consumption 117. For the purpose of the present investigation, demand or apparent consumption of the product in India has been defined as the sum of domestic sales of the India producers and imports from all sources. The demand so assessed is given in the table below. Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ------------------------------|--------|------------|------------|------------|------------ Sales of domestic industry | MT | 10,97,894 | 11,75,972 | 12,56,387 | 12,07,083 Captive consumption | MT | 6,662 | 0 | 1,37,268 | 2,17,230 Sales of other domestic producers | MT | 11,98,008 | 10,35,742 | 9,12,230 | 9,39,285 Subject imports | MT | 12,32,004 | 26,04,583 | 28,00,255 | 34,34,806 Other imports | MT | 11,96,935 | 9,42,638 | 8,25,941 | 8,12,434 Total Demand | MT | 47,31,503 | 57,58,934 | 59,32,081 | 66,10,837 118. The Authority notes that the demand for the subject goods has increased in India throughout the injury period and was highest during the period of investigation. b. Import volumes from the subject countries 119. With regard to the volume of the imports, the Authority is required to consider whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports from the subject countries, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. The same is analysed in the table below. Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ------------|------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Subject imports | MT | 12,32,004 | 26,04,583 | 28,00,255 | 34,34,806 Australia | MT | 1,16,925 | 2,96,324 | 1,69,401 | 1,36,749 China PR | MT | 1,24,044 | 9,44,638 | 6,80,467 | 7,39,508 Colombia | MT | 5,28,332 | 5,55,586 | 5,67,205 | 3,61,969 Indonesia | MT | 69,932 | 2,53,672 | 8,59,057 | 17,52,886 Japan | MT | 3,45,603 | 3,80,420 | 2,63,742 | 2,19,726 Russia | MT | 47,168 | 1,73,944 | 2,60,383 | 2,23,968 Other imports | MT | 11,96,935 | 9,42,638 | 8,25,941 | 8,12,434 Total imports | MT | 24,28,939 | 35,47,220 | 36,26,196 | 42,47,239 Subject imports in relation to | | | | | Production | % | 50% | 124% | 140% | 172% Consumption | % | 26% | 45% | 47% | 52% Total Imports | % | 51% | 73% | 77% | 81% 120. The Authority notes that: i. The volume of imports from subject countries have increased throughout the injury period. The subject imports have increased by 179% over the injury period. ii. Imports in relation to production and consumption have also increased over the injury period. The subject imports account for 52% of the consumption in India during the period of investigation. iii. While the subject imports comprised 51% imports into India during the base year, the volume of subject imports has more than doubled over the injury period. The subject imports account for 81% of imports into India during the period of investigation. iv. The subject imports have increased at a pace higher than the increase in demand. The demand in India has increased by 40% in the period of investigation as compared to the base year, while the subject imports have increased by 179% over the same period. 121. With regard to the submissions that the increase in imports has not caused any injury to the domestic industry as the sales of the domestic industry have increased, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has sold the subject goods at losses. The increase in volume parameters of the domestic industry is due to compromising on profitability by the domestic industry. 3. Price Effect of Dumped Imports 122. With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on price of the domestic industry, it is required to be analysed whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the alleged dumped imports as compared to the price of the like products in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred in the normal course. The impact on the prices of the domestic industry on account of the dumped imports from the subject countries has been examined with reference to price undercutting, price suppression and price depression, if any. a. Price Undercutting 123. For the purpose of price undercutting analysis, the selling price of the domestic industry has been compared with the landed value of imports from the subject countries. Particulars | Unit | Amount ------------------|-----------|--------- Selling price | ₹/MT | *** Landed price | ₹/MT | 27,024 Price undercutting| ₹/MT | *** Price undercutting| % | *** Price undercutting| Range | 15-25% 124. The Authority notes that the subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry, and the price undercutting is positive and significant. The domestic industry has submitted that the landed price of subject imports is not just below the selling price of the domestic industry but also the cost of sales of the domestic industry. b. Price Suppression and Depression 125. In order to determine whether the dumped imports are depressing the domestic prices and whether the effect of such imports is to suppress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred in normal course, the changes in the costs and prices over the injury period, are compared as below: Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI --------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 125 | 105 | 102 Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 146 | 124 | 122 Landed price | ₹/MT | 32,618 | 37,733 | 28,916 | 27,024 Trend | Indexed | 100 | 116 | 89 | 83 126. The Authority notes that in 2022-23, both the cost of sales and selling price of the domestic industry increased. However, the increase in selling price was lower than the increase in cost of sales of the domestic industry. The import price increased less than increase in cost of sales and selling price in 2022-23. In 2023-24, the selling price and cost of sales of the domestic industry decreased, but the decline in selling price was higher than decline in cost of sales of the domestic industry. During the period of investigation, the cost of sales and selling price declined further. The landed price was below the cost of sales and selling price during the period of investigation, forcing the domestic industry to reduce its prices, despite the same already being below the cost of sales. On overall basis, while both cost of sales and selling price have increased over the injury period, the increase in selling price is much less than the increase in cost of sales. Thus, the imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry and have prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred. 4. Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry 127. Annexure II to the Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of the consequent impact of dumped imports on the prices of the domestic industry. With regard to consequent impact of dumped imports on domestic producers of such products, the Rules further provide that the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should include an objective and unbiased evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices, the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital investments. 128. The injury parameters have been examined objectively taking into account various facts and submissions made. a) Production, capacity, capacity utilization and sales 129. Capacity, production, capacity utilization and sales of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the following table: Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI -------------------|------|------------|------------|------------|------------ Capacity | MT | 31,61,750 | 33,48,531 | 34,38,531 | 36,16,031 Production | MT | 16,26,523 | 14,47,193 | 14,45,028 | 14,42,008 Capacity utilization | % | 51% | 43% | 42% | 40% Domestic sales | MT | 10,97,894 | 11,75,972 | 12,56,387 | 12,07,083 130. The Authority notes that: i. While the capacity of the domestic industry has increased over the injury period, the production has declined. ii. The demand in India is higher than the capacities of the domestic industry and hence, the demand is enough for the domestic industry to utilise its capacities fully. Even then, the capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined. iii. The domestic sales of the domestic industry has increased. The domestic industry has submitted that the said increase is only due to compromising on profitability. 131. With regard to the submissions that the capacity utilization of the domestic industry has declined due to addition of capacities, the Authority notes that not just the capacity utilization but the actual production of the domestic industry has also declined. While the domestic industry has increased capacities and the demand in India has also increased, the production has declined. Thus, the decline in capacity utilization cannot be considered to be due to increase in capacities. b) Market Share 132. The market share of the domestic industry, other domestic producers, subject imports and imports from the other countries are given in the table below. Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ----------------------|------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Domestic industry | % | 23% | 20% | 23% | 22% Other Indian producers| % | 25% | 18% | 15% | 14% Subject imports | % | 26% | 45% | 47% | 52% Other imports | % | 25% | 16% | 14% | 12% 133. The Authority notes that: i. The share of the domestic industry as well as the Indian industry as a whole has declined over the injury period. ii. The share of imports from other countries has also declined. iii. The share of the subject imports in demand has increased, and the subject imports account for half the share of the market. The subject imports have taken over the market share of the Indian industry as well as imports from other countries. c) Inventories 134. The inventory position with the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below: Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ----------------|------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Opening Stock | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Closing Stock | MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Average Inventory | MT | 1,04,260| 1,64,201| 2,19,746| 1,99,085 135. The Authority notes that the inventories of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period. While the domestic industry has sold the subject goods at losses during the period of investigation and the production of the domestic industry has reduced, the inventories of the domestic industry have increased. d) Profitability, return on investment and cash profits 136. Profitability, return on investment and cash profits of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below: - Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Cost of sales | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 146 | 124 | 122 Selling price | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | 125 | 105 | 102 Profit/(Loss) per unit | ₹/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | (18) | (22) | (37) Total Profit/(Loss) | ₹/Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | (19) | (26) | (41) Cash Profit | ₹/Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed | 100 | (2) | (2) | (14) Return on capital employed | % | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | %Indexed| 100 | 2 | 10 | (10) 137. The Authority notes that: i. The profitability of the domestic industry has declined significantly over the injury period. While the domestic industry earned profits in 2021-22, it has incurred only losses thereafter. Further, the losses of the domestic industry have increased year after year post 2022-23. ii. While the domestic industry was able to increase its sales as it was selling at losses, the total losses of the domestic industry have increased. iii. The cash profits have declined significantly and to such an extent that the domestic industry has incurred cash losses not just in the period of investigation but also in 2022-23 and 2023-24. iv. The return on capital employed of the domestic industry has also followed the same trend. The return on capital employed has declined significantly over the injury period. The domestic industry has recorded a negative return on capital employed in the period of investigation. e) Employment, productivity and wages 138. Employment, productivity and wages of the domestic industry over the injury period is given in the table below. Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ------------------------|--------|---------|---------|---------|--------- No. of Employees | Nos | 1,809 | 1,822 | 1,942 | 1,900 Wages | ₹/Lacs | *** | *** | *** | *** Trend | Indexed| 100 | 93 | 97 | 93 Productivity per day | MT/days| 4,647 | 4,135 | 4,129 | 5,341 Productivity per employee | MT/No. | 899 | 794 | 744 | 759 139. The Authority notes that the number of employees of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period with increase in capacities. The productivity per employee as well as salaries and wages have declined over the injury period. f) Growth Particulars | Unit | 2021-22 | 2022-23 | 2023-24 | POI ---------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|--------- Capacity | % | - | 6% | 3% | 5% Production | % | - | (11)% | (0.1)% | (0.2)% Domestic Sales | % | - | 7% | 7% | (4)% Profit/Loss | % | - | (118)% | (23)% | (65)% Cash profits | % | - | (102)% | (11)% | (495)% Return on capital employed | % | - | (98)% | 307% | (198)% 140. The Authority notes that: i. The capacity of the domestic industry has increased year on year till the period of investigation. ii. The volume parameters of the domestic industry including production and domestic sales of the domestic industry have declined in the period of investigation. iii. The profitability parameters of the domestic industry have declined year on year during the injury period. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses and cash losses in 2022-23, 2023-24 and the period of investigation. Further, the losses of the domestic industry have increased and shown a negative growth over the injury period. iv. The return on capital employed showed a negative growth in 2022-23, however, the same improved in 2023-24. The return on capital employed has shown negative growth once again in the period of investigation. g) Factors affecting domestic prices 141. Since the price of subject imports is lower than the selling price of the domestic industry, the same has created a strain on the prices of the domestic industry. Further, the imports are below the non-injurious price and cost of sales of the domestic industry. This has forced the domestic industry to sell at prices below their cost, resulting in financial and cash losses. The subject imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry and have prevented price increases, which otherwise would have occurred. Therefore, the Authority provisionally concludes that the imports are adversely impacting the prices of the domestic industry. h) Magnitude of dumping and dumping margin 142. The Authority notes that the subject goods from the subject countries are being dumped in India and the dumping margin is positive and significant. i) Ability to raise capital investment 143. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has incurred financial losses and cash losses in 2022-23, 2023- 24 and the period of investigation. Further, the domestic industry has recorded a negative return on capital employed. In such a case, the ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investment has been adversely impacted. I. Magnitude of Injury Margin 144. The Authority has determined non-injurious price for the domestic industry on the basis of principles laid down in Rules read with Annexure III, as amended. The non-injurious price of the product under consideration has been determined by adopting the verified information/data relating to the cost of production for the period of investigation. The non-injurious price has been considered for comparing the landed price from the subject countries for calculating the injury margin. For determining the non-injurious price, the best utilisation of the raw materials, the utilities and the production capacity by the domestic industry over the injury period have been considered. It is ensured that no extraordinary or non-recurring expenses were charged to the cost of production. A reasonable return (pre-tax @ 22%) on the average capital employed (i.e., average net fixed assets plus average working capital) for the product under consideration was allowed as pre-tax profit to arrive at the non-injurious price as prescribed in Annexure III of the Rules and is being followed. 145. The landed price for the cooperative exporters has been determined on the basis of the data furnished by the exporters. For all the non-cooperative producers/exporters from the subject countries, the Authority has determined the landed price based on facts available. 146. Based on the landed price and non-injurious price determined as above, the injury margin for producers/exporters has been determined by the Authority and the same is provided in the table below: - S.N. | Country of origin | Non-Injurious Price | Landed Price | Injury Margin | Injury Margin | Injury Margin ----|-------------------|-------------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|--------------- | | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (USD/MT) | (%) | (Range) A | Australia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25% B | China PR | *** | *** | *** | *** | 25-35% C | Colombia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 25-35% D | Indonesia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25% E | Japan | *** | *** | *** | *** | 10-20% F. | Russia | *** | *** | *** | *** | 15-25% J. Non-attribution analysis and causal link 147. Having examined the existence of injury, volume and price effects of dumped imports on the prices of the domestic industry, the Authority has examined whether injury to the domestic industry can be attributed to any factor, other than the dumped imports, as listed under the Rules: a. Volume and value of imports from third countries 148. It is noted that apart from the subject countries, imports are in significant volumes only from Poland during the period of investigation. However, imports from Poland are priced higher than the price of imports from the subject countries. Therefore, the injury is not attributable to imports from third countries. b. Contraction in demand 149. The demand for the subject goods has increased over the injury period. Thus, injury cannot be attributed to any contraction in demand. c. Pattern of consumption 150. There has been no material change in pattern of consumption of the product under consideration, which could have caused injury to the domestic industry. d. Conditions of competition and trade restrictive practices 151. There are no trade restrictive practices or conditions of competition, which may have caused injury to the domestic industry. e. Developments in technology 152. There has been no change in technology for production of the subject goods, due to which the domestic industry could have suffered injury. f. Productivity 153. The productivity of the domestic industry has changed with change in production of the domestic industry. Thus, injury cannot be due to decline in productivity. g. Export performance of the domestic industry 154. The injury information examined hereinabove related only to the performance of the domestic industry in terms of its domestic market. Thus, the injury suffered cannot be attributed to the export performance of the domestic industry. h. Performance of other products 155. The injury suffered cannot be attributed to the performance of other products of the company, as the domestic industry has segregated and provided information with regard to the like article only. i. FTAs with some subject countries 156. With regard to the submissions that the injury to the domestic industry is due to reduction in MFN duty rates due to FTAs signed by India with Australia, China, Indonesia and Japan, the Authority notes that the landed price of imports from all subject countries is below the non-injurious price of the domestic industry. Thus, the injury is not due to low price of imports only from the countries with which India has signed an FTA. 157. The Authority further notes that the customs duty was reduced to the minimum levels from all countries barring Australia prior to the period of investigation. The domestic industry was profitable in 2021-22, when the custom duties were the same as that in the period of investigation. As regard, Australia, the landed price of imports from Australia is higher than most of the countries even though the same is not subject to customs duty. K. INDIAN INDUSTRY'S INTEREST & OTHER ISSUES K.1. Submissions by other interested parties 158. The following submissions have been made by the other interested parties with regard to the Indian industry's interest. i. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will result in increase in price of the product under consideration which will raise input cost of the downstream industry and lead to decline in profitability, competitiveness and employment levels of the steel producers. ii. Imposition of anti-dumping duty may disincentivize the domestic industry from improving operational efficiencies and adopting advance technologies. iii. There is a demand-supply gap in India and imports are essential to fulfil the same. iv. The domestic industry is already protected by safeguard measures in force. v. The domestic industry is abusing the trade remedial investigations as there is over reliance by the domestic industry on trade remedial measures. K.2. Submissions by the domestic industry 159. The domestic industry has made the following submissions with regard to the Indian industry's interest: i. Public interest must be determined with regard to interests of (a) the domestic producer of like article, (b) the domestic consumers of the product, (c) the upstream and downstream industries in both the producing and consuming industry, and (d) the general public. ii. There will not be any adverse impact of imposition of anti-dumping duty which is evident from the fact that there has been no adverse impact of anti-dumping duty in the past. iii. The impact of imposition of anti-dumping duty on the downstream industry is less than 1%. iv. Since the impact of the anti-dumping duty is minimal, it is likely to be borne by the downstream industry and not passed on to the users. v. The downstream industry does not change the price of its product based on the fluctuation in prices of the product under consideration. vi. The domestic industry has suffered significantly due to subject imports leading to unfavourable market conditions for any further investments. vii. The Indian industry holds sufficient capacities to cater to the entirety of the merchant demand in India. viii. The current capacities of the domestic industry are higher than the demand in India therefore, imposition of duties will not lead to shortage of the product under consideration in India. ix. A number of producers ceased operations due to dumping in India. The producers suffered due to accumulated inventories and were forced to shut down their operations. x. Major steel manufacturers have captive coke oven plants and will not be impacted by any measures on imports of the product under consideration. xi. The downstream industry is insulated and well-protected by the Government of India under various schemes and measures. xii. The downstream product is subject to higher basic customs duty as compared to the subject goods. K.3. Examination by the Authority 160. The Authority notes that the primary objective of anti-dumping duty is to remedy the injury inflicted upon the domestic industry by unfair trade practice of dumping. The imposition of anti-dumping measures is not designed to curtail imports from the subject countries arbitrarily. Rather, it is a mechanism to ensure a level playing field. The Authority acknowledges that the persistence of anti-dumping duties may influence the price levels of the product in India. However, it is crucial to note that the essence of fair competition in the Indian market will remain unscathed by the imposition of these measures. Far from diminishing competition, the imposition of anti-dumping measures serves to prevent the accrual of unfair advantages through dumping practices. It safeguards the consumers' access to a broad selection of the subject goods. Thus, anti-dumping duties are not a hindrance but a facilitator of fair-trade practices. 161. The Authority notes, that the prices of the domestic industry as well as landed price of imports have declined significantly in the period of investigation. The prices were much higher in the past. Since there was no adverse impact on the performance of downstream industry in the past due to such high prices, there likely will not be any adverse impact of imposition of anti-dumping duty. 162. As regard the submissions that there is a demand-supply gap in India, the Authority notes that the same is incorrect. As per the information on record, the capacity of the domestic industry is much more than the merchant demand in India. While imposition of anti-dumping duty does not restrict imports into India, even in case of cessation of imports, there will likely be no shortage of the product under consideration in India. Particulars | Volume(MT) --------------------------------------|------------ Demand in India (Excluding Captive) | 63,93,607 Total Indian Capacity of merchant producers | 67,15,931 Demand-supply Gap (Excluding Captive) | (3,22,324) 163. With regard to the submissions that imposition of anti-dumping duty will adversely impact the profitability of the downstream industry, the Authority notes that there is no evidence on record to show that the profitability of the users were hampered due to higher prices of the subject goods in previous years. In any case, as per the evidence on record, the impact of imposition of anti-dumping duty on the downstream industry is less than 1%. Particulars | Unit | Amount ----------------------------------------------|-----------|--------- Present selling price of the domestic industry | ₹/MT | *** Non injurious price of the domestic industry | ₹/MT | *** Increase in price to reach non-injurious price | ₹/MT | *** Price of Hot Rolled Coil Steel | ₹/MT | 63,959 Met Coke consumption per MT of Steel | Kg/MT | 304 Share of merchant producers and imports in total demand in steel industry | % | 10% Met Coke consumption per MT of Steel (purchased from domestic producers of met coke + imports) in steel industry [***% of *** kg/MT] | Kg/MT | 30 Increase in price to customer | ₹/MT | *** Increase in price to customer | ₹/kg | *** Share of increase in price due to anti-dumping duty in Hot Rolled Coil Steel | ₹/MT | *** Impact of anti-dumping duty | % | <0.15% *Hot Rolled Coil Steel of 2.5 mm 164. The Authority also notes that the major consumption of the subject goods is in steel industry. However, majority of steel producers have captive coke oven plants and are insulated by change in market price of the subject goods. Thus, there will be no adverse impact on such producers. Further, since the product used by ferroalloy industry has already been excluded, there is no adverse impact on the ferroalloy industry as well. Segment | Gross | Captive | Merchant | Share of | Segment-wise Share | (KT) | (KT) | (KT) | Merchant | Overall | Merchant ------------|-------|---------|----------|-----------|---------|---------- Steel | 34,147| 30,522 | 3,625 | 11% | 89% | 54% Pig Iron | 2,018 | 1,064 | 954 | 47% | 5% | 14% Zinc, Soda Ash & | 736 | 0 | 736 | 100% | 2% | 11% Others | | | | | | Ferro Alloys| 525 | 0 | 525 | 100% | 1% | 8% Foundry | 266 | 0 | 266 | 100% | 1% | 4% Others | 629 | 0 | 629 | 100% | 2% | 9% Total | 38,320| 31,586 | 6,734 | 100% | 100% | 100% 165. The applicant has submitted that the downstream industry has been provided adequate support by the Government of India. Since the domestic industry is suffering intensified injury, it is essential to remedy the situation for the Indian industry producing subject goods as well. 166. With regard to the contention that the applicants are taking undue advantage of trade remedial measures, the Authority notes that the anti-dumping duty has been imposed on imports of the product under consideration multiple times in the past, as a result of dumping of the product. The Authority has conducted detailed examination of dumping, injury and causal link and thereafter, recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty. The number of measures on imports of the product under consideration shows the pricing and unfair trade practice of the producers in the subject countries. 167. With regard to the submissions that the quantitative restrictions in force will address injury to the domestic industry, the Authority notes that such measures are temporary in nature. The producers in the subject countries have engaged in unfair trade practice and have dumped the product under consideration in India during the period of investigation. The period of investigation in the present investigation is after the most recent period in the safeguard investigation. Since unfair practice has continued in India, there is a need for imposition of anti- dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. 168. The Authority notes that a number of producers shut down their operations due to extensive dumping in India. *** were forced to shutdown. Further, the Authority notes that the inventories of the domestic industry have increased even though it has reduced production and sold the subject goods at losses. In case, the present situation persist, other producers are also likely to shutdown. L. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 169. After examining the submissions made by the interested parties and issues raised therein; and considering the facts available on record, the Authority provisionally concludes that: i. The application for initiation of anti-dumping investigation against imports of Low Ash Metallurgical Coke originating or exported from Australia, China PR, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia was filed by the Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association on behalf of the domestic industry. Nine members of the applicant association have filed data for the purpose of the present investigation. ii. The product under consideration is Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18% excluding ultra- low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content up to 0.030% with size upto 30 mm with 5% size tolerance for use in ferroalloy manufacturing. iii. The exclusion requests made by the other interested parties have been examined and the Authority provisionally finds that the domestic industry has produced and sold the like article to the products for which exclusion has been requested. Accordingly, no other exclusion has been considered by the Authority. iv. The domestic industry has produced like article to the product under consideration imported from the subject countries. v. The domestic producers which have provided data for the purpose of the present investigation account for major proportion of Indian production. None of the producers barring Bengal Energy Limited have imported the product under consideration into India during the period of investigation. The imports of Bengal Energy Limited are not significant as compared to the production, demand and imports into India. None of the domestic producers are related to any exporter of the subject goods in the subject countries or any importers in India. Accordingly, the Authority has provisionally considered the domestic producers eligible to constitute domestic industry. vi. Jindal Coke Limited has clarified it has not imported the product under consideration in India from the subject countries during the injury period and has provided detailed data. Accordingly, it has been considered a part of the domestic industry. vii. The normal value and export price for cooperative producers and exporters have been provisionally determined based on the information provided by them. The same is subject to verification. viii. Considering the normal value and export price determined, the dumping margin for the subject goods from the subject countries is significant and above de minimis. ix. Imports of the subject goods from the subject countries have increased in absolute and relative terms over the injury period. x. The subject imports are undercutting the prices of the domestic industry. xi. The subject imports have depressed the prices of the domestic industry and prevented price increases, which would have otherwise occurred. xii. As regards to the effect of such dumped imports on the economic parameters of the domestic industry, the following provisional conclusions are reached: a. The capacity of the domestic industry has increased but the production has declined. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has also declined. b. Even though the domestic industry has sold the subject goods at losses, it was forced to reduce production. c. The market share of the domestic industry and of the Indian industry as a whole has decreased, while that of the subject imports have increased. d. While the demand for the subject goods has increased over the injury period, such increase has been taken over by the subject imports. e. The inventories of the domestic industry increased over the injury period. The inventories have increased despite the fact that the production of the domestic industry has reduced and it has been selling the subject goods at losses. f. The profitability of the domestic industry has declined significantly over the injury period. g. The domestic industry has incurred financial losses as well as cash losses over the injury period. h. The return on capital employed of the domestic industry has declined significantly over the injury period. The domestic industry has recorded a negative return on capital employed in the period of investigation. i. The ability of the domestic industry to raise capital investments has been adversely impacted. xiii. The domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping of subject goods from the subject countries. xiv. No other known factors have caused injury to the domestic industry and injury to the domestic industry is due to dumping of the subject imports into India. xv. The imposition of anti-dumping duty is in the interest of public at large. This is evident from the following: a. Imposition of anti-dumping duty will provide a fair playing field to the Indian industry. b. The price of the product under consideration was higher in the past, which did not adversely affect the users. c. The impact of imposition of anti-dumping duty is negligible on the downstream industry. d. The major market segment is catered to by the captive consumers which are insulated by fluctuations in prices of the subject goods. e. There is no demand-supply gap in India. The capacity of the Indian industry is enough to cater to the entirety of merchant demand in India. f. The domestic industry has suffered financial losses, cash losses and recorded a negative return on capital employed. In such a case, the market conditions are not conducive of further investments. g. A number of producers have faced shutdowns due to dumping of the product under consideration in India. 170. The Authority notes that the investigation was initiated and notified to all interested parties and adequate opportunity was given to the domestic industry, exporters, importers, and other interested parties to provide positive information on the aspect of dumping, injury, and causal link. Having initiated and conducted the investigation into dumping, injury and causal link in terms of provisions laid down under the Anti-Dumping Rules, the Authority is of the view that imposition of provisional duties is required to offset dumping and injury, pending completion of the investigation. Therefore, the Authority considers it necessary to recommend imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries. 171. Having regard to the lesser duty rule followed by the Authority, the Authority recommends imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty equal to the lesser of margin of dumping and the margin of injury, so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority recommends imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject countries, from the date of notification to be issued in this regard by the Central Government, equal to the amount indicated in Col. 7 of the duty table appended below. Duty Table S. No. | Heading | Description* | Country of Origin | Country of Export | Producer | Amount | Unit | Currency ------|-----------|-------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------|----------|--------|------|---------- (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) 1 | 2704 0010, | Low Ash Metallurgical Coke* | Australia | Any country including Australia | Any | 73.55 | MT | USD | 2704 0020, | | | | | | | | 2704 0030 | | | | | | | | and 2704 | | | | | | | | 0090 | | | | | | | 2 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | Australia | Any | 73.55 | MT | USD 3 | -do- | -do- | China PR | Any country including China PR | Any | 130.66 | MT | USD 4 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | China PR | Any | 130.66 | MT | USD 5 | -do- | -do- | Colombia | Any country including Colombia | Any | 119.51 | MT | USD 6 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | Colombia | Any | 119.51 | MT | USD 8 | -do- | -do- | Indonesia | Any country including Indonesia | Any | 82.75 | MT | USD 9 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | Indonesia | Any | 82.75 | MT | USD 10 | -do- | -do- | Japan | Any country including Japan | Any | 60.87 | MT | USD 11 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | Japan | Any | 60.87 | MT | USD 12 | -do- | -do- | Russia | Any country including Russia | Any | 85.12 | MT | USD 13 | -do- | -do- | Any Country other than Australia, Colombia, China PR, Indonesia, Japan and Russia | Russia | Any | 85.12 | MT | USD * Metallurgical Coke having ash content below 18% excluding ultra-low phosphorous metallurgical coke with phosphorous content up to 0.030% with size upto 30 mm with 5% size tolerance for use in ferroalloy manufacturing. M. FURTHER PROCEDURE 172. The procedure as mentioned below would be followed subsequent to notifying the preliminary findings: i. The Authority invites comments on these provisional findings from all interested parties within 15 days from the publication of these findings, and the same, to the extent considered relevant by the Authority, would be considered in the final findings. ii. The Authority would conduct an oral hearing in terms of Rule 6(6) of the Anti-Dumping Rules to provide an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views relevant to the subject investigation. iii. The date of the oral hearing will be published on the DGTR website. (www.dgtr.gov.in) iv. The Authority would conduct further verification of the interested parties as deemed necessary. v. The Authority would disclose the essential facts as per the Anti-Dumping Rules before issuing final findings in the subject investigation. SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Designated Authority List of known importers/users of the product under consideration 1. Abhijeet Ferrotech Ltd. 2. Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3. Anjaney Ferro Alloys Ltd. 4. Anmol India Ltd, 5. Araas International Trading 6. Arcelormittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. 7. Arjas Steel Pvt. Ltd. 8. Arrk Ferro Alloys Llp. 9. Asansol Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 10. Assam Carbon Products Ltd. 11. Atibir Industries Company Ltd. 12. Avon Advanced Materials Company 13. Axis Business 14. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 15. Balasore Alloys Ltd. 16. Berry Alloys Ltd. 17. Bhuteshwar Nirman Pvt. Ltd. 18. Bihar Foundry and Casting Ltd. 19. Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd. 20. Chawla International 21. Chemtrade Global Impex LLP 22. City Link Logistics 23. Deccan Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 24. Digital Waves Computer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 25. E Chemex Pvt. Ltd. 26. Emergent Industrial Solutions Ltd. 27. Essel Mines and Minerals 28. Exera Exports Pvt. Ltd. 29. Facor Alloys Ltd. 30. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd. 31. Foundry Neers 32. GHCL Ltd. 33. Global Recycling 34. Global Trade Link 35. Goyal Dhatu Udyog Pvt. Ltd. 36. Hariaksh Industries Pvt. Ltd. 37. Hira Electro Smelters Ltd. 38. Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. 39. Hira Power and Steels Ltd. 40. Hubb International 41. Impex Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. 42. India Coke and Power Pvt. Ltd. 43. Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. 44. Integrated AFR Pvt. Ltd. 45. JD B Coke 46. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. 47. Jain Natural Resources 48. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. 49. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. 50. Jindal Stainless Ltd. 51. JSW Ispat Special Products Ltd. 52. JSW Steel Ltd. 53. KIC Metaliks Ltd. 54. Kalyani Steels Ltd. 55. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. 56. KMS Traders 57. LK Sri Enterprise LLP 58. Madras Coal and Coke Suppliers 59. Mahalaxmi Continental Ltd. 60. Mahalaxmi Ennore Coke and Power Pvt. Ltd. 61. Mahalaxmi Wellman Fuel Llp 62. Maithan Alloys Ltd. 63. MDA Mineral Dhatu (Ap) Pvt. Ltd. 64. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. 65. Mor Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 66. Mpm-Durrans Refracoat Pvt. Ltd. 67. Mukund Ltd. 68. Naryani Resorources Pvt. Ltd. 69. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. 70. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. 71. Neo Metaliks Ltd. 72. Nirma Ltd. 73. Nova Carbons India Pvt. Ltd. 74. Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. 75. Oswal Minerals Ltd. 76. Oswal Smelters Pvt. Ltd. 77. Paragon Overseas Ltd. 78. Paragon Purva Ltd. 79. Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd. 80. Polo Queen Industrial and Fintech Ltd. 81. Pooja Scrap Industries 82. Prakash Commercial 83. Prashanth Coal and Coke Sales 84. Pushpanjali Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. 85. Rashmi Cement Ltd. 86. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. 87. Renewera LLP 88. Rhodium Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 89. Rockfit Corporation 90. Roxul Rockwool Insulation India Pvt. Ltd. 91. Royal Marketing 92. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. 93. S V Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 94. Sampath Vinayak Steels Pvt. Ltd. 95. Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. 96. Sarda Metals and Alloys Ltd. 97. Savoy International Pvt. Ltd. 98. Seekeze Pvt. Ltd. 99. Sharp Ferro Alloys Ltd. 100. Shivan Iron and Steel Company Ltd. 101. Shivamani and Company Pvt. Ltd. 102. Shivkashi Trade Ventures 103. Shraddha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 104. Shree Bholey Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 105. Shri Jai Baba Trading Company 106. Shrishyam Ingot and Castings (P) Ltd. 107. Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd. 108. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. 109. Sivam Alloys and Fuels Llp 110. SLR Metaliks Ltd. 111. Snam Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 112. Sreenathji Enterprises 113. Sri Raghvendra Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 114. Srikalahasthi Pipes Ltd. 115. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 116. Sundaram Alloys Ltd. 117. Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd. 118. Suraj Products Ltd. 119. Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. 120. Swati Concast and Power Pvt. Ltd. 121. Tata Steel Long Products Ltd. 122. Tata Steel Ltd. 123. Tata Steel Mining Ltd. 124. Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd. 125. Tuf Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. 126. Udaya Udyog 127. Vidhi Industries 128. Vimla Fuels Andamp Metals Pvt. Ltd. 129. Visa Minmetal Ltd. 130. Vishal Agencies 131. Vivan Overseas 132. Welspun Metallics Ltd. 133. Wisdom Inc. 134. Yug Alloys Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH YADAVA Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA Date: 2025.11.17 15:32:42+05'30' ```