Full Text
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 77] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2025
CG-DL-E-18032025-261696
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2025
Case No. SG-01/2024
Subject: Preliminary findings in the Safeguard Investigation concerning imports of
“Non-Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products”
F. No. 22/01/2024-DGTR .—A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. The Indian Steel Association (“ISA” or the “Applicant”), on behalf of its Members,
namely, a) ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited, b) AMNS Khopoli Limited,
c) JSW Steel Limited, d) JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, e) Bhushan Power &
Steel Limited, f)Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and g) Steel Authority of India Limited
(collectively referred to as “applicant companies”) filed an application before the
Director General (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”, or “DG” or “Director
General”) under Section 8B of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”), read with the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard
Measures) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) seeking imposition of
Safeguard Duty on imports of “Non-Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products” (hereinafter
referred to as “PUC” or “Product Under Consideration” or “subject goods”) into India.
2. The Applicant alleges that there is a recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in
the volume of imports, which has caused serious injury to the domestic industry in
India. The Applicant further alleges that imports have taken place in such increased
quantities and under such circumstances as to cause and threaten to cause serious injury
to the domestic industry. The Applicant seeks imposition of safeguard duties to protect
the domestic industry engaged in the production of like articles or directly competitive
products from such serious injury and threat thereof being caused by the imports of
PUC.
3. The Authority, vide notice dated 19th December 2024, initiated the present safeguard
investigation under Rule 5(3) of the Rules after examining the accuracy and adequacy
of the evidence provided in the application and satisfied itself that there is sufficient
prima facie evidence regarding: a) recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in
imports, b) serious injury and threat of serious injury to the domestic industry, and c) a
causal link between the increased imports and serious injury and threat thereof.
B. PROCEDURE
4. A brief description of the procedure adopted by the Authority is described below:
a. The Authority initiated the current investigation vide initiation notification No.
22/01/2024-DGTR dated 19 December 2024, published in the Gazette of India
Extraordinary Part I No. 337 dated 19th December 2024 vide CG-DL-E
202122024-259547
b. In accordance with Rules 6(2) and 6(4), copies of the initiation notification and
the non-confidential version (NCV) of the application were forwarded to the
embassies of the exporting countries, the known exporters, importers and users
of the subject goods, and the concerned associations.
c. The interested parties including the embassies of the exporting countries,
producers, exporters, importers and users were granted 15 days’ time initially to
file their responses. Thereafter, the Authority considered the requests of various
interested parties and granted an extension of time up to 22nd January, 2025 to file
their responses.
d. The Authority sent questionnaires to the following known producers/exporters in
the exporting countries in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the Rules:
1. Rizhao
2. Betai Iron & steel
3. Baotou Iron and Steel Group
4. Jiangsu Shagang Group Company Limited
5. Tonghua Iron Steel Group Corporation
6. Angang Steel Company
7. Nanjing Iron and Steel
8. Tangshang Iron & Steel
9. Wuhan Iron and Steel
10. Tianjin Iron & Steel Group Co Ltd
11. Shanghai Color Steel Co. Ltd
12. Baosteel Group Corporation
13. Aosen Steel
14. Nippon Sumitomo
15. JFE Steel Corporation
16. Kobe
17. Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.
18. POSCO
19. Hyundai Steel Co Ltd
20. Dongkuk Steel Mill Col Ltd.
21. Severstal
22. EVRAZ
23. Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel
24. Krakatau Steel
25. Growth Steel
26. PT. Gunawan Dianjaya Steel, Tbk
27. ArcelorMittal, Ukraine
28. PJSC “Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant”
29. ArcelorMittal Germany Holding GmbH
30. ArcelorMittal Italia
31. Steel Coat Europe Alleur (Arcelor Mittal)
32. ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG
33. SSAB
34. Metal Trade Comax
35. Voestalpine AG
36. Huttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann
37. Salzgitter Group
e. The following parties either registered their interest in the investigation and/or
filed submissions in the form of product exclusion requests, questionnaire
responses and preliminary comments:
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| S. N. | Name of Interested Party | S. | Name of Interested Party |
| | | N. | |
+=====+=================================================+=====+=============================================+
| 1. | Embassy of Taiwan | 2. | KAD & CO. (AGENCY) PVT. LTD. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 3. | Embassy of Korea | 4. | Shanker Mercentile Pvt Ltd. SMPL |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 5. | Embassy of Indonesia | 6. | JayaSprings |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 7. | British High Commission | 8. | Welspun Corp Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 9. | Embassy of Russia | 10. | Leomet Alloys |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 11. | High Commission of Malaysia | 12. | DMC AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE |
| | | | LIMITED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 13. | Embassy of Saudi Arabia | 14. | Daeseong India Automotice Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 15. | Embassy of Japan | 16. | DAECHANG SEAT AUTOMOTIVE |
| | | | PVT LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 17. | Ministry of Industry and Trade of VietNam | 18. | KSH Automotive private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 19. | Embassy of Spain | 20. | Jeanuvs Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 21. | Embassy of Turkey | 22. | Aarya Trading Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 23. | Embassy of UAE | 24. | Fine Components and Tools Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 25. | Embassy of European Union | 26. | Tadpole Engineering Consultancy Pvt |
| | | | Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 27. | Embassy of Brazil | 28. | Sungwoo Stamping India Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 29. | Embassy of Mexico | 30. | Pyung Hwa India Private Limited PHI |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 31. | Ministry of Commerce, Thailand | 32. | Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 33. | Embassy of Sweden | 34. | PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 35. | Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke | 36. | V W IMPEX |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 37. | Vina One Steel Manufacturing Corporation | 38. | VYOMA EXIM PVT LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 39. | Tay Nam Steel manufacturing and Trading Co., Ltd.| 40. | G G STEELS |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 41. | Nippon Steel Trading Corporation | 42. | YSI Automotive Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 43. | Nippon Steel Corporation | 44. | SRK International |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 45. | JFE Steel Corporation | 46. | Gestamp Automotive Channai Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 47. | Kobe Steel, Ltd | 48. | UE PRESS TOOLS PRIVATE |
| | | | LIMITED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 49. | Toyota Tsusho Corporation | 50. | Society of Indian Automobile |
| | | | Manufacturers (SIAM) |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 51. | JFE Shoji Corporation | 52. | Satoshoji-India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 53. | Toyota Tsusho Corporation | 54. | SKH M India Pvt.Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 55. | Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic| 56. | Krishca Strapping Solutions Limited |
| | of Korea | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 57. | JFE Shoji India Pvt. Ltd. | 58. | POS-Hyundai Steel Mfg. (I) Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 59. | Nippon Steel Pipe India Private Limited | 60. | TT STEEL SERVICE INDIA |
| | | | PRIVATE LIMTED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 61. | The Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt.| 62. | STEEL & BEARING CORPORATION |
| | Ltd | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 63. | Nissan Trading Co., Ltd | 64. | Colorshine India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 65. | Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited | 66. | CHIRALI ENTERPRISES" |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 67. | Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt Ltd. | 68. | Maruti Suzuki India Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 69. | Nippon Steel Trading Corporation | 70. | 1. PCA AUTOMOBILES INDIA |
| | | | PRIVATE LIMITED |
| | | | 2. GRUPO COSMOS INDIA PRIVATE |
| | | | LIMITED |
| | | | 3. PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 71. | The Japan Iron and Steel Federation | 72. | NRB Bearing Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 73. | GS Global Corp | 74. | Karison Profiles Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 75. | Hyundai Corporation | 76. | Sungwoo Hi-tech AP Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 77. | Hyundai Steel Company | 78. | Daechang India Seat Co.Pvt.Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 79. | Hyundai Motor India Ltd | 80. | Hwashin Automotive India Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 81. | Hoa Sen Group | 82. | JBM OGIHARA AUTOMOTIVE |
| | | | INDIA Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 83. | Samsung C&T Corporation | 84. | Tata Motors Group |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 85. | Hyosung TNC Corporation | 86. | Purohit Steel India Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 87. | JIANGYIN XINGCHENG SPECIAL STEEL WORKS | 88. | Global Trade Research Initiative |
| | CO., LTD. | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 89. | ANGANG STEEL CO., LTD | 90. | HL Mando Anand India Pvt Ltd, |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 91. | BENGANG STEEL PLATES CO., LTD | 92. | Mahindra & Mahindra |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 93. | 1. Chengde Chengsteel Vanadium & Titanium Cold | 94. | Mahindra Defence Systems Limited |
| | Rolling | | |
| | Thin Plate Co., Ltd.”, | | |
| | 2. HBIS COMPANY LIMITED HANDAN BRANCH”, | | |
| | 3. HBIS Laoting Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.” | | |
| | 4. Wuyang Iron And Steel Co., Ltd.”, | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 95. | JIANGYIN XINGCHENG SPECIAL STEEL WORKS | 96. | NLMK India Service Center Private |
| | CO., LTD | | Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 97. | SHOUGANG QIAN'AN IRON and Shougang Jingtang | 98. | Hella India Automotive Pvt. Ltd. |
| | United | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 99. | 1. HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY, Korea RP | 100.| Sansera Engineering Limited, |
| | 2. HYUNDAI STEEL PIPE INDIA Pvt. Ltd. | | |
| | 3. HYUNDAI STEEL ANANTAPUR Pvt. Ltd. | | |
| | 4. HYUNDAI STEEL INDIA Pvt. Ltd. | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 101.| Jindal India Pvt | 102.| Ashok Leyland Defence Systems Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 103.| Kia India Private Limited | 104.| Ashok Leyland Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 105.| Man Industries India Ltd | 106.| IBF Automotive Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 107.| Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. | 108.| Sincerity Innovation Technology India |
| | | | Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 109.| Welspun Corp Limited | 110.| Talbros Automotive Components Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 111.| Jindal India Ltd | 112.| Riddhi Siddhi Special Steel Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 113.| Mega Pipes Private Ltd. | 114.| Hariom Pipe Industries Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 115.| Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Limited | 116.| Velmurugan Heavy Engg.Inds.Pvt.Ltd., |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 117.| Hyundai Motor India Ltd | 118.| Federal Mogul TPR India Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 119.| China Iron & Steel Association | 120.| Polyhose Sato shoji metal works Pvt ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 121.| Vietnam Steel Association | 122.| INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE |
| | | | PROCESSING PVT. LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 123.| Indian Pipe Manufacturers Association | 124.| Kirti Pressings Pvt. Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 125.| Steel Users Federation of India (SUFI) | 126.| JBM Auto Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 127.| LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. | 128.| FERRUM EXTREME ENGINEERING |
| | | | PVT. LTD. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 129.| Metal One Corporation India Private Limited | 130.| MACHANI RAMESH ENGINEERING |
| | (“MOCIPL”) | | PVT LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 131.| Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited | 132.| PHA India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 133.| Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co Ltd | 134.| Katsushiro Matex India Pvt. Ltd, |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 135.| Kirco Steel LLP | 136.| Tata Steel Downstream Products |
| | | | Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 137.| Metal One Corporation | 138.| Taehwa Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 139.| POSCO Maharashtra Steel Private Limited | 140.| Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 141.| POSCO India Pune Processing Center Private | 142.| Pushpanjali Drums Private Limited |
| | Limited | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 143.| POSCO India Processing Centre Private Limited | 144.| K M Seat Company Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 145.| POSCO | 146.| RIKUN Manufacturing Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 147.| POSCO STEELEON | 148.| Kumkang Machinery India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 149.| Hyundai Corporation | 150.| Leomet Alloyes |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 151.| Dongkuk Coated Metal CO. LTD | 152.| Kwangsung Brake India Pvt Ltd., |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 153.| Dongkuk Steel India Private Limited | 154.| Komos Automotive India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 155.| Sevarstal | 156.| Action Construction Equipment Ltd. |
| | | | ACE |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 157.| Hyosung TNC Corporation | 158.| L.G.BALAKRISHNAN & BROS.LTD., |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 159.| NAM KIM STEEL JOINT STOCK COMPANY | 160.| AHMEDABAD STRIPS PW. LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 161.| NLMK Verona S.p.A | 162.| Sterling & Wilson Renewables Energy |
| | | | Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 163.| NLMK Clabecq S.A | 164.| M & B Engineering Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 165.| NLMK Plate Sales S.A. | 166.| Dali & Samir Engg. pvt. Ltd., |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 167.| JFE Shoji Steel Malaysia Sdn Bhd | 168.| Gestamp Automotive India Pvt . Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 169.| CSC Steel Sdn Bhd | 170.| Fiat India Automobiles Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 171.| Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation (FHS) | 172.| CIE Automotive India Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 173.| TVP Steel Trading Joint Stock Company | 174.| Emitec Technologies India Private |
| | | | Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 175.| POSCO International Corporation, Korea RP | 176.| Gartech Equipments Pvt. Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 177.| KG DONGBU STEEL CO.,LTD | 178.| Gargs Engineers |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 179.| Mitsui & Co., Ltd | 180.| Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. |
| | | | Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 181.| Stainless Steel Merchants’ Association | 182.| Chasys Automotive Components Pvt. |
| | | | Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 183.| Federation of Associations of Maharashtra | 184.| Tarun International Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 185.| The Japan Iron and Steel Federation | 186.| Arcedges Building India LLP |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 187.| Automotive Component Manufacturers Association | 188.| Veegee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. |
| | of India (ACMA) | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 189.| Indian Pipe Manufacturers Association (IPMA) | 190.| Maxglobal Techno Systems (P) Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 191.| Korea Iron and Steel Association(KOSA) | 192.| Stitch Overseas Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 193.| Federation of Kutch Industries | 194.| CSCI Steel Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. |
| | Associations (FOKIA) | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 195.| Taiwan Steel & Iron Industries Association | 196.| SKH SHEET METALS |
| | （TSIIA） | | COMPONENTS PVT. LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 197.| METAL & STAINLESS STEEL MERCHANTS | 198.| WKM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. |
| | ASSOCIATION | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 199.| Construction Federation of India | 200.| AVIZA TECHNOLOGIES, |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 201.| LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd | 202.| J.R. & CO. complete steel service |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 203.| MANAKSIA STEELS LTD | 204.| All India Metal corp |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 205.| SSMS STEELS INDIA LLP | 206.| MI ELECTRICAL STEEL |
| | | | PROCESSING INDIA PVT LTD |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 207.| ARUN AGARWAL (Micro MSME) | 208.| GEDIA India Automotive Components |
| | | | Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 209.| Blupine Energy | 210.| AISIN Automotive Haryana Pvt. Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 211.| Turakhia International Pvt Ltd | 212.| Samsung India Electronics Private |
| | | | Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 213.| VINOD COOKWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED | 214.| POSCO International Corp India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 215.| Isgec Heavy Engineering Limited | 216.| Stecol International Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 217.| Isgec Hitachi Zosen Limited | 218.| Neemrana Steel service center India |
| | | | Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 219.| LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD | 220.| Kwangjin India Autosystems Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 221.| CU-BUItT ENGIruEERS PVT. LTD. | 222.| SL Lumax Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 223.| M/s. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD and | 224.| Wooyoung Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., |
| | M/s. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED | | |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 225.| NTECK AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. | 226.| Hyundai Transys Lear Automotive IND |
| | | | Pvt Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 227.| TI Fluid Systems | 228.| NVH India Auto Parts Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 229.| CSCI Steel Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. | 230.| HSI Automotives Pvt. Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 231.| Sharda Motor Industries Ltd | 232.| Uno Minda Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 233.| Sankei Giken India Pvt Ltd | 234.| GRI Towers India Private Limited |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 235.| JBM Group | 236.| Senvion Wind Technologies Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 237.| Exedy India Limited | 238.| Hyosung Corporation India Ptv. Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 239.| Sanoh India Private Limited | 240.| Komatsu India Pvt Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 241.| SRK Steel | 242.| TAIIN Steel Fab & Infra Pvt.Ltd. |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 243.| Schaeffler India Limited | 244.| Toyota Boshoku device India Pvt. Ltd |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
| 245.| DAEBU Automotive seat India Pvt Ltd | 246.| SSAB SWEDISH STEEL INDIA |
| | | | PRIVATE LIMITED |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+-----+---------------------------------------------+
f. After initiation of investigation, the Authority obtained DGCIS data for the
relevant period and considered the same in this preliminary finding. The injury
and other information in respect of DI are based on the company specific data of
the petitioners.
g. The Authority conducted a preliminary verification of the data submitted by the
applicant companies. It cross-checked the information provided in the application
with the financial records maintained by each applicant company.
h. Considering that the investigation period should be adequately long and
sufficiently recent in time to allow reasonable conclusions to be drawn on the
basis of various relevant factors such as domestic market conditions, performance
of DI etc., the Authority considers that the period mentioned in the Initiation
Notice to be appropriate. Accordingly, the Authority has taken 1st October 2023
to 30th September 2024 as the most recent period or the period of investigation
(POI), and FY 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the POI as injury investigation
period or injury analysis period for the purposes of this investigation.
i. The Authority made available the non-confidential version of the evidence
presented by various interested parties on mutual basis in the manner prescribed
through Trade Notice No. 10/2018 dated 7 September 2018. The information /
submissions provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis were
examined concerning the sufficiency of such confidentiality claims. On being
satisfied as to the sufficiency of the confidentiality claims filed by the interested
parties, the Authority has considered such information/submissions as
confidential. In case of non-acceptance of confidentiality claims, the interested
parties were directed to submit the non-confidential version of the same and
circulate it to the other interested parties.
j. ‘***’ in this document represents information furnished by an interested party on
a confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under Rules 7 of Rules.
k. The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided
by all the interested parties at this stage, to the extent the same are supported with
evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation.
l. The Government of Korea RP and the Government of Japan requested the
Authority to hold consultations. The Authority considered their request and held
consultations with the representatives of Government of Korea on 24.01.2025 and
with the representatives of Government of Japan on 29.01.2025. The issues raised
during the consultations have been appropriately addressed in these preliminary
findings.
m. The Authority will further examine the information submitted and arguments
raised by the interested parties subsequent to preliminary findings, which will
form the basis for its conclusions in the time of final findings.
n. The exchange rate for the POI is 1 US$=Rs. 83.09.
o. The applicant, in its application alleged that there are critical circumstances that
necessitate the imposition of provisional duties under Rule 10. The Authority has
considered the grounds submitted by the applicant, response of the interested
parties to the application and based on careful consideration of the material placed
on record as explained in sections below issues the current preliminary findings
under Rule 9.
C. THE PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
5. Under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, the Authority is required to identify the article liable for
safeguard measure. In terms of paragraph 3 of the initiation notice1
the article under
investigation is “Non-Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products” (hereinafter referred to as
“Product under consideration” or ‘PUC”) comprising of five product categories,
namely, (a) Hot Rolled (“HR”) coils, sheets and plates, (b) HR Plate Mill Plates, (c)
Cold Rolled (“CR”) coils and sheets, (d) Metallic Coated Steel coils and sheets,
whether or not profiled, including Galvanneal, Coated with Zinc or Aluminium-Zinc or
Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium, and (e) Colour Coated coils and sheets, whether or not
profiled. The PUC is classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975,
under tariff heading 7208, 7209, 7210, 7211, 7212, 7225 and 7226. The tariff headings
are indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.
6. In terms of paragraph 4 of the initiation notice, the following products are excluded
from the scope of the PUC:
i. Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel (CRGO)
ii. Cold Rolled Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (CRNO) coils and sheets
iii. Coated – Electro Galvanized Steel
iv. Tinplate
v. Stainless steel
7. The applicant provided a brief indicative and non-exhaustive description of each
category of the PUC, which is reproduced below:
a) HR coils, sheets and plates include products that are not further worked than hot rolled and are flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel, in prime or non-prime
condition having ‘as-rolled’ edge or ‘trimmed’ edge or ‘slit’ edge or ‘milled’ edge
or ‘sheared’ edge or ‘laser-cut’ edge or ‘gas-cut’ edge or any other type of edges.
These products may be pickled or non-pickled (with or without skin-pass), slit or
non-slit, normalized or un-normalized, ultra-sonically tested or untested, oiled or
non-oiled etc. These products may be ‘as-rolled’ or ‘thermo-mechanically rolled’
or ‘thermo-mechanically controlled rolled’ or ‘controlled rolled’ or ‘normalized
1
Initiation Notice No. 22/01/2024-DGTR dated 19 December 2024
rolled’ or ‘normalized’ or subject to any other similar processes. These products
may have been subjected to various processing steps like pickling, oiling,
rewinding, recoiling, temper rolling, heat treatment, etc. These products may be
sand blasted or shot blasted or subjected to similar surface treatment processes.
The HR coils, sheets and plates may be produced through the hot strip mill (HSM)
route or thin slab casting route.
b) HR Plate Mill Plates are produced through the plate mill route include products
that are not further worked than hot-rolled, and are flat products of alloy or non alloy steel, in prime or non-prime condition having ‘as-rolled’ edge or ‘trimmed’
edge or ‘slit’ edge or ‘milled’ edge or ‘sheared’ edge or ‘laser-cut’ edge or ‘gas cut’ edge or any other type of edges. These products may be pickled or non pickled (with or without skin-pass), normalized or un-normalized, ultra-sonically
tested or untested etc. These products may be ‘as-rolled’ or ‘thermo-mechanically
rolled’ or ‘thermo-mechanically controlled rolled’ or ‘controlled rolled’ or
‘normalized rolled’ or ‘normalized’ or subject to any other similar processes.
These products may have been subjected to various processing steps like pickling,
oiling, heat treatment, etc. These products may be sand blasted or shot blasted or
subjected to similar surface treatment processes.
HR Coil, Sheets, Plates and Plate Mill Plates are conventionally used in
automotive, oil and gas line pipes/exploration, cold rolled steel products, wind
mills, ship building, pipe manufacturing, general engineering & fabrication,
construction, capital goods, process equipment for cement, fertilizer, refineries,
earth-moving, boilers, pressure vessels, infrastructure projects and many more
end-use applications across various sectors and industries.
c) CR coils and sheets include cold rolled / cold reduced /flat steel products of iron
or non-alloy steel or other alloy steel of all widths and thicknesses. The PUC
includes cold rolled / cold reduced flat steel products in coils or not in coils,
including slit coils or sheets, blanks whether or not annealed or box annealed or
batch annealed or continuously annealed or any other annealing process or full
hard or partially hard. These products may be oiled or supplied without oil. These
products may conform to various qualities of steel including but not limited to
full hard, partially hard, commercial quality, drawing, deep drawing, extra deep
drawing, interstitial free steel, high strength low alloy steels, advance high
strength steels, ultra-high strength steels, alloy steels, micro-alloyed steel and
various other qualities, whether or not vacuum degassed or any other processes.
These steels may be produced and supplied with or without skin pass / temper
rolling, whether or not aluminium killed / non-ageing quality and whether or not
containing micro-alloying elements. These products are used in applications
spread across various end-usages including but not limited to the automotive
industry, tractors, bicycles, appliances, furniture, electrical panels, packaging,
drums, barrels, general engineering, substrate for coating, color coaling
galvanizing, metal-coaling / plating, tin plate, pipe and tube manufacturing,
general engineering and many more end-use applications across various sectors
and industries.
d) Metallic Coated Steel coils and sheets, whether or not profiled, include
Galvanneal, Coated with Zinc, Aluminium-Zinc, or Zinc-Aluminium Magnesium. Coated steels can be alloy or non-alloy steels, prime or non-prime
quality. Coated steels can also be supplied as laminated or without lamination,
lacquered or non-lacquered, skin-passed with a variety of spangles, with coatings
of different composition and weight including differential coatings on either side.
Coated steels are mainly used for protection against corrosion. Coated steels are
used in Roofing application, appliances, renewable energy, automotive, general
engineering and many more end use applications.
e) Colour-coated coils and sheets include coated products that undergo the colour coating process. These products are either of alloy or non-alloy steel, whether of
prime or non-prime quality, coated on one-side or both sides, either in the form
of coils or plain sheets or profiled sheets including but not limited to trapezoidal,
sinusoidal, corrugated or any other type of profile. These products are available
in various paint qualities and a variety of paint colours, whether or not precoated
with primer or any other suitable material. These products may either be painted
on top surface of the steel sheet or on the bottom surface or on both top and bottom
surfaces. This product may be supplied with or without guard film/lamination.
These products offer resistance to corrosion along with barrier protection and are,
therefore, used in many applications and sectors, including but not limited to
construction, roofing, walling, panelling, cladding and decking, automotive,
white goods and appliances, furniture, and many more end use applications.
8. The Authority notes that the PUC ‘non-alloy and alloy steel flat products’ comprises of
five distinct categories. No interested party has made any comments regarding the
single product category. However, several interested parties have made comments on
the five categories of products individually. The Authority recognises that the distinct
categories of the product are its variants in a production value chain and their holistic
examination is compatible with the objective of an effective trade remedy solution for
the PUC. Thus the Authority considered it appropriate to examine the product as a
whole as well as each of the five categories individually to the extent considered
necessary.
9. The Authority received requests from several interested parties for exclusion of certain
grades from the scope of the PUC. The Authority observed that some exclusion requests
were also included in the questionnaire responses filed by the interested parties. For the
purposes of these preliminary findings, the Authority examined the exclusion requests
from the various interested parties that were received within the prescribed timeline of
on or before 22 January 2025.
10. The applicant filed its comments regarding the exclusion requests filed by various
interested parties. The Authority has examined the exclusions requests received from
various interested parties and the submissions of the domestic industry. In evaluating
the claims and counter-claims regarding exclusion requests, the Authority considered
the following legal standard to be appropriate.
11. Agreement on Safeguard does not define the term “product under consideration”.
Neither does it “discipline the choice of the product under investigation, in itself.”2 The
Agreement on Safeguard merely states that a safeguard measure may be imposed on
imports of products that “cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic
industry that produces like or directly competitive products”. (emphasis supplied).
2 Panel Report, European Union – Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products, WT/DS595/R and Add.1,
adopted 31 May 2022, 7.34.
12. In the anti-dumping agreement, the phrase “directly competitive products” is absent.
“Like product” is defined as “a product which is identical, i.e. alike in all respects to
the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product
which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those
of the product under consideration.” The test of “likeness” in the AD Agreement is one
that focuses on product characteristics. However, the Agreement on Safeguard covers
not only “like product”, but also “directly competitive products”.
13. The Panel, in US – Safeguard Measures on Washers, drew a distinction between the
concept of “likeness” and “direct competitiveness” and explained that the Agreement
on Safeguards does not mandate that the product under consideration comprise only of
“like products”, but may also include “directly competitive products”:
“7.58. We note in this regard that Article 4.1 defines the domestic industry
as producers of "like or directly competitive" products. The parties
disagree on the meaning of the conjunction "or" in this phrase. In our
view, it is possible that the use of the conjunction "or" in Article 4.1(c)
indicates that the concept of likeness is distinct from the concept of direct
competitiveness, as the United States submits. However, that term might
also indicate, as Korea argues, that an investigating authority is
permitted to include products (for the purpose of defining the domestic
industry) that, even though they are not like imported products (because
for instance they have different physical characteristics), are
nevertheless directly competitive with imported products. ...”
14. The Panel, in the same report, acknowledged that even if the imported goods are not
“like” the domestically produced products, the imported goods may nevertheless be
subjected to safeguard measures if they are directly competitive with the domestically
produced products. The Panel further went on to explain the differences between the
legal standard of “likeness” and “directly competitiveness” as follows:
“7.59. The Agreement on Safeguards does not define the term "like". The
Oxford English Dictionary defines "like" as "[o]f similar or identical
shape, size, colour, character, etc., to something else; having the same or
comparable characteristics or qualities as some other person or thing;
similar; resembling; analogous". The United States also refers to the
Webster Dictionary definition of "like", which is "the same or nearly the
same (as in nature, appearance, or quantity)". We also note that the Anti Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, which require
investigating authorities in anti-dumping and countervailing duty
investigations respectively to define the domestic industry based on
producers of like products, define like product as a product (a) which is
identical, i.e. alike in all respects to the PUC; or (b) in the absence of
such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects,
has characteristics closely resembling those of the PUC. These
definitions do not resolve the issue of whether, and if so how and to what
extent, competitive relations between imported and domestic products
need to be considered as part of a likeness determination. However, when
we interpret Article 4.1(c)in the context of Article 4 of the Agreement on
Safeguards as a whole, and specifically Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b), the
meaning of likeness in Article 4.1(c) becomes clearer.”
15. To summarize the observations of the Panel, the analysis of “likeness” under the Anti Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement focuses on the product characteristics
and not on the competitive relationship between the products. On the other hand, the
Agreement on Safeguards has a broader purview that includes competitive relationship
between the products.
16. In US – Safeguard Measures on Washers, the Panel noted that there is no requirement
under the Agreement on Safeguard for there to be a precise “match” between the
imported and the domestically produced products, as long as the imported product is
directly competitive and substitutable with the domestically produced product:
“7.51. [...] Neither Article 4.1(c) nor any other provision of the
Agreement on Safeguards (including the provisions governing the
subsequent conduct of the investigation, such as Articles4.2(b)and
4.2(c)), impose any additional requirements precluding what Korea
describes as a "mismatch" between the PUC and the domestically
produced good. Article 4.1(c) requires that the domestic industry be
defined on the basis of producers of goods that are "like or directly
competitive" with the PUC. To the extent the domestic industry is defined
based on the producers of like or directly competitive products, there is
no additional requirement under Article 4.1(c) for a "match" between the
PUC and the domestically produced good. Indeed, accepting Korea's
position would mean that the investigating authority would have to
exclude a producer of like or directly competitive goods from the scope
of the domestic industry because the domestic product, while like or
directly competitive, is essentially not the same as (or to use Korea's
words, does not "match") the goods included in the PUC. This is at odds
with the text of Article 4.1(c). We consider that if Article 4.1(c) were
intended to preclude investigating authorities from defining the domestic
industry on the basis of goods that are like or directly competitive but not
a "match", the provision would have been drafted differently.”
17. The Authority is mindful that in examining the exclusion requests filed by various
interested parties, the legal standard that must also be applied is whether the imported
product is either “like” or “directly competitive” with the domestically produced
product. Previously, in the Safeguard Investigation concerning solar cells whether or
not assembled in modules or panels, the Authority noted that “common and overlapping
application” of products may determine their competitive relationship. In this case,
imported products that had overlapping applications with locally produced products
were found to be directly competitive and were held to be covered within the scope of
the PUC:
“22. Some interested parties have submitted that DI does not possess
Thin-film technology and “PERC” (Passivated Emitter Rear Cell) based
technology, & Bi-facial N-type solar cells; High efficiency solar cells
using 5 and 6 bus bar production terminology; and Solar modules of
mono crystalline technology and therefore PUC should be restricted only
to the scope of production capability/ production by the DI. I have
carefully examined this aspect and noted that Solar cells of various types
produced by different technologies vary in terms of efficiency, price,
physical characteristics, like size and weight etc. These variations though
lead to trade off in price and efficiency, the final usage of the PUC is only
to produce power.
23. The Safeguard duty rules (Custom Tariff (Identification and
Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997–Notification No. 35/97-NT Customs dated 29.07.1997 (hereinafter called as Safeguard Rules) hold
a domestic producer as “a producer of the like article or directly
competitive article in India or a trade or business association, a majority
of members of which produce or trade the like article or directly
competitive article in India” and “like article” defined as “like article
means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article
under investigation.” The common and overlapping applications of PUC
establishes that imported and domestically produced subject goods are
directly competitive. This therefore does not warrant any exclusion from
the scope of PUC as stated in initiation notification. I therefore uphold
and confirm the scope of PUC as considered and mentioned in para 5.1
of the preliminary finding dated 5.01.2018.”
18. Considering the legal standards as mentioned above, the Authority has formulated
principles for their application to the investigation on hand and examined comments of
the interested parties. The Authority notes that some of the importers, users and
exporters have cited grounds such as lack of ability of domestic industry to manufacture
certain product grades, lack of sufficient domestic production volumes, quality issues
or lack of certification of the product made by domestic industry by the buyer/user as
grounds for exclusion of specific product grades/types from the investigation. The
Authority has examined these concerns. With reference to lack of domestic
manufacturing capability, the domestic industry has responded with acceptance of
exclusion of some of the products that it does not purport to cover in its application as
these are not competing with the products manufactured by the domestic industry. With
reference to others for which it has capability to produce, the domestic industry has
furnished evidence for supply of the like or directly competing products. On the issue
of lack of sufficient domestic production volumes, the Authority notes that the law does
not contemplate that the safeguard measure can be imposed only when the domestic
industry can fulfil entire domestic demand. The key question to be examined here would
be that even if there is a demand supply gap, is the import surge resulting in decline in
domestic production, rendering its existing and available capacity idle and thus causing
injury to the domestic industry. With reference to the quality issues or lack of
certification by the buyer/user, the Authority notes that there is no legal requirement to
prove quality as per the satisfaction of the buyer/user. If such a standard is adopted, then
buyer/user would be free to reject domestically produced products citing grounds
related to quality leaving the domestic industry without any remedy. The Authority
considers that this would undermine the objective of a trade remedy action.
19. The Authority has examined each of the exclusion requests individually in the following
paragraphs. The findings contain conclusions of the Authority for the purposes of the
preliminary findings alone. The Authority determines that at the stage of the
Preliminary Findings, it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The likeness can be established if the
Domestic Industry is selling articles falling under the same Indian Standards or of the
same nomenclature, and the direct competitiveness can be established based on
common and overlapping end usage or on the basis of sale to the same customer/s or
customers in the same industry. The Authority notes that none of the parties are
precluded from offering further comments during the course of the investigation.
20. In response to the exclusion requests filed by various interested parties, the applicant
domestic industry agrees, in addition to what is not covered in its application, to the
request for exclusion of the following grades / categories: Nickel Coated / Nickel Plated
Cold Rolled Steel; Rubber Coated Steel; Electro Galvanised (EG) – Zinc Nickel Coated
Steel; Bi-Metal Steel / Bi-Metal Sandwich Steel; Brass Coated Steel Wire (wire is part
of long steel products, which are not even covered in the notice of initiation);
CRUTONITE; INCONEL; Stainless Steel Items (which are not even covered in the
notice of initiation); Aluminium Coated Steel; Aluminium Silicon Coated / Hot Dipped
Aluminised Silicon Coated Steel; Hot Rolled Clad Steel Plate; Nickel Plated Steel /
Nickel Plated Strip; Copper Plated Steel; Laminated Electro Galvanized (EGI); Cobalt
Plated Steel; Silver Plated Steel; Titanium Clad Plates. The Authority, therefore,
accepts the exclusion requests for the abovementioned grades.
a) Hyundai Motors India Limited (HMIL)
21. HMIL has requested the exclusion of 196 product grades/types of steel from the scope
of the PUC. The exclusion requests have been divided into three broad categories – (a)
the products for which the DI does not have capability (38 grades); (b) products for
which there are capacity constraints (141 grades), and (c) products for which the
domestic industry is not allocating sufficient quantities to HMIL (17 grades).
22. It is noted that HMIL has identified five Indian Standards under which these 196 grades
are covered – India Standard (IS) 1079, IS 18385, IS 513 Part 1, IS 513 Part 2, and IS
5986. The submission and categorization of HMIL do not address whether the domestic
industry is engaged in manufacturing “directly competitive” articles. Nonetheless, it is
assumed that as an automobile manufacturer, the products for which exclusion has been
sought are used in automotive applications.
23. As noted above, there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine or
the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 196 grades with
identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user (such as HMIL) on a standalone basis. Additionally, HMIL has stated that for
certain grades, the quality of the goods supplied by the domestic industry is not
satisfactory. The Authority notes that differences in the quality of the products cannot
be grounds for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Furthermore, the lack
of customer certification is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product
from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer
could deny certification of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such
products do not attract trade remedy measures.
24. The Authority determines that at the stage of the Preliminary Findings, it would be
sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive
articles”.
25. As stated earlier, the Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for (a) Aluminium
Coated Steel; (b) Aluminium Silicon Coated / Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon Coated
Steel; and (c) and Nickel Coated / Nickel Plated Steel.
26. The applicant, in its submissions, has produced various invoices for products covered
under IS 513, IS 1079, IS 18385 and IS 5986. Further, the applicant has provided
various invoices covering wide range of HR, CR and Metallic Coated steel sold to
automotive companies such as ***, etc. Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests of HMIL pertaining to
the grades other than the grades that have been accepted by the domestic industry.
b) Hyundai Steel Corporation (HSC)
27. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of a total of 104 product
types/grades of products citing reasons of (a) capacity constraints of the domestic
industry (14 grades); (b) difficulty in transportation and lead time (6 grades); (c)
products not produced by the domestic industry or delay in localization of production
(55 grades); (d) quality issues (26 grades); and suppliers designated by project owners.
28. HSC further contends that other jurisdictions have excluded automotive steel from the
scope of the PUC in anti-dumping investigations concerning flat steel products. As
stated above, unlike the Anti-Dumping Agreement, where the scope of the PUC is
limited to “like articles”, the legal standard for the scope of the PUC under the safeguard
law includes “directly competitive” articles. Further trade remedy investigations take
into account a country’s domestic situation at a particular point in time. The findings of
other jurisdictions cannot be automatically adopted. Therefore, the reliance placed by
HSC on anti-dumping determinations of other jurisdictions is not tenable.
29. The Authority notes that HSC has not identified the specific Indian standard of the
grades for which it has sought exclusion. The submission and categorisation of HSC do
not address whether the domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing “directly
competitive” articles. The Authority notes that 87 out of the 104 types/grades of
products for which exclusion has been sought have automotive applications, whereas
17 types/grades are used in other sectors.
30. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 104
grades with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law
that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each
individual user (such as HSC) on a standalone basis.
31. HSC claims that the quality of certain grades supplied by the domestic industry is not
satisfactory. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a
ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack of
customer approval (where suppliers are designated by project owners) is also not a valid
ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is
susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval
of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract
trade remedy measures. Similarly, difficulty in transportation cannot be a valid ground for
seeking product exclusion because the Authority is only required to examine whether
the domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing “like” or “directly competitive”
articles.
32. Among the 87 automotive grades of steel, HSC’s request covers GI/GA, Aluminium Silica coated, High Strength and Ultra-High Strength Steel, and Ultra Deep Drawing
Steel. As stated earlier, the Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for (a)
Aluminium Coated Steel; (b) Aluminium Silicon Coated / Hot Dipped Aluminised
Silicon Coated Steel.
33. With respect to the remaining product types/grades having automotive application, the
Authority notes that HSC has not provided the corresponding Indian Standard for the
grades for which it seeks exclusion. The applicant has provided various invoices
covering wide range of HR, CR and Metallic Coated steel sold to automotive companies
such as ***, etc., which demonstrates that the domestic industry has supplied articles
that have common and overlapping usage with the products for which HSC has sought an
exclusion. These products are therefore directly competitive. Therefore, the Authority,
for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed
by HSC other than the grades that have been accepted by the domestic industry.
34. With respect to the 17 grades/types which pertain to other application, it is noted that
these 17 grades/types include High Strength Special Steel, High Carbon Hot-Rolled
Steel, API Certified Hot Rolled Steel, Heavy Plates, etc. The Authority notes that the
end usage identified by HSC for these grades/types includes pressure vessels, pipe
manufacturing, windmills, shipbuilding, etc. The Authority notes that the domestic
industry has filed various invoices, covering sales of several grades of High Strength,
High Carbon Steel and Heavy Plates and API Certified Steel, which have common and
overlapping usage with the 17 grades/types of steel for which HSC has sought an
exclusion. Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by
HSC pertaining to the grades used in non-automotive applications.
c) The Government of Korea (GOK) and Korea Iron and Steel Association (KOSA)
35. The Government of Korea (GOK) and Korea Iron and Steel Association (KOSA) have
made identical requests for the exclusion of 52 grades/types of steel.
36. The GOK requests for the exclusion of the 52 grades/types citing (a) lack of customer
approval; (b) insufficient supplies by the domestic industry; (c) quality issues. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 52 grades with
identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis. The Authority determines, it would be sufficient to examine
if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The
Authority notes that the differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack of customer
approval (where suppliers are designated by project owners) is also not a valid ground
for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible
to misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval of the
domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract trade
remedy measures. Similarly, difficulty in transportation cannot be a valid ground for
seeking product exclusion because the Authority is only required to examine whether
the domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing “like” or “directly competitive”
articles.
37. The Authority notes that the GOK and KOSA have identified 27 types/grades that are
used in automotive applications. The applicant has produced various sales invoices of
steel with diverse grades supplied to the automotive industry. Therefore, the Authority
is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by these interested parties pertaining to
grades used in automotive application.
38. The Government of Korea and KOSA has further identified products which have usage
in construction (4); home appliances (16); solar power plants (3); electrical steel (1);
and moulds and tools (1). The Authority notes that the interested parties have not
provided Indian standard of the grades/types used in moulds and tools. Therefore, such
exclusion requests cannot be considered at this stage for lack of details which could be
used to apply the legal test of like and directly competitive articles.
39. The Authority notes that with respect to the products used in home appliances, the
domestic industry has provided various sales invoices, covering pre-painted galvanised
steel and galvannealed steel, which are used in home appliances sold to consumer
electronics companies such as ***, etc. Therefore, the Authority, is unable to accept the
request to exclude the 16 grades/types used in home appliances.
40. The Authority notes that 2 out of the 52 types/grades which the Government of Korea
and KOSA identify are “All electrical steel products which POSCO Maharashtra clears
the customs” and “All Hot-rolled coils which POSCO Maharashtra clears the customs”.
Due to lack of any legal basis, the Authority is unable to accept such requests for broad
company-specific generic exclusions.
d) Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC)
41. Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) has filed exclusion requests for 312 grades/types of
products. The exclusion requests can be categorized under four broad categories: (a)
products cannot be manufactured in India; (b) products manufactured in India do not
meet steel-users' demand, higher technological specifications and qualities, precise
delivery; (c) grades specifically designed to meet the requirements of AM/NS India’s
rolling and coating lines (d) the quality of the goods supplied by the domestic industry
lacks customer certification.
42. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 312
grades with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law
that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each
individual user on a standalone basis.
43. The Authority also notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground
for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack of customer
approval is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of
the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer would have the
ability to deny approval of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such
products do not attract trade remedy measures. Further, difficulty in delivery of product
is not a justifiable ground for seeking exclusion of a product since this neither disproves
the substitutability of the product, nor the ability of the domestic industry to
manufacture such products.
44. As stated earlier, the Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for (a) Aluminium
Coated Steel; (b) Aluminium Silicon Coated / Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon Coated
Steel; and (c) and Nickel Coated / Nickel Plated Steel.
45. Hot Rolled Coils - NSC requested 44 grades/types for exclusion under Hot Rolled
Coils, out of which 31 grades/types have usage in Automotive sector. The applicant has
provided several invoices covering Hot Rolled products, which were sold to automotive
companies such as ***, which demonstrates that the domestic industry has supplied
articles that have common and overlapping usage with the products for which Nippon
Steel Corporation has sought an exclusion.
46. NSC has also claimed exclusion for 13 grades/types which it supplied to AMNS India
for captive usage. AMNS India Ltd. has stated that they are committed to being an
applicant/domestic industry and that they are fully aligned with the views of the
applicant, with regard to the product scope and the exclusion requests made by various
interested parties. Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the exclusion requests of
these 13 grades.
47. Hot Rolled Plates - NSC requested 122 grades/types for exclusion under Hot Rolled
Plates having usage in building construction, Boilers, Pressure Vessels construction
machinery, Flue-gas treatment equipment used with Coal-fired boilers, waste
incineration plants, Manufacturing pipes used for pipeline, Penstock and Home
appliances. The Authority examined several invoices provided by domestic industry
which demonstrates that the domestic industry has supplied articles that have common
and overlapping usage with the above.
48. Hot Dip Galvanized & Cold Rolled Coils - NSC have requested exclusion for 32
grades/types under Hot Dip Galvanized and 22 grades/types under Cold Rolled Coils
category having usage in Automotive industry. The Authority notes that domestic
industry has provided several invoices covering galvanized and cold rolled coils sold to
automotive companies such as ***, etc., which have common and overlapping usage
with the grades/types Nippon Steel have sought exclusion for.
49. Coated with Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium - NSC has requested exclusion for 92
grades/types under Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium coated steel category having usage in
Solar power generation panel, Automobile manufacturing and Home appliances. The
domestic industry has provided several invoices covering Zinc-Aluminium Magnesium
sheets, which have common and overlapping usage with the products for which Nippon
Steel Corporation has sought exclusion.
50. Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the
exclusion requests filed by Nippon Steel Corporation other than the ones accepted by
the domestic industry.
e) JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”)
51. Coated Steel - JFE had asked for the exclusion of 37 different grades of Coated Steel
from the scope of the PUC. The exclusion requests have been divided into two broad
categories – (a) the products / grades that the DI does not produce (13 grades), (b) The
products for which the DI does not have the capacity to meet the specific requirements
and also there is no customer approval (24 grades). All the grades of coated steel are
stated to have an end use for the purposes of “automobile”.
52. We note that the JFE has provided various Japanese Standards under which these 37
grades are covered. No corresponding Indian Standard grade for any of the said Coated
Steel s have been provided. The submission and categorisation of JFE do not address
whether the domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing “directly competitive”
articles.
53. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 37 grades
with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis.
54. Additionally, JFE has stated that for certain grades, the goods supplied by the domestic
industry do not match the specific requirements. The Authority notes that differences in
quality of the products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of
the PUC. Furthermore, the lack of customer approval is also not a valid ground for
seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to
misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval of the
domestic industry’s products in order to claim lack thereof as grounds for exclusion
during trade remedy measures.
55. The Authority has also examined if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly
competitive articles”. The Authority notes that the applicant has provided various
invoices corresponding to some of the Japanese grades. Furthermore, the applicant has
provided various invoices covering coated steel which were sold to automotive
companies such as *** etc. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion the requests filed by JFE.
56. Cold Rolled Coils - JFE Steel Corporation had asked for the exclusion of 25 different
grades of Cold Rolled Coils from the scope of the PUC. The exclusion requests have
been divided into three broad categories – (a) the products / grades that the DI does not
produce (2 grades), (b) the products for which DI does not have customer approval (21
grades), and (c) the products for which there is better quality and stable supply from the
Japanese exporters. All the grades of cold rolled steel are stated to have an end use for
the purposes of “automobile”.
57. The Authority notes that all these grades are covered under IS 513-Part 1 and IS513-
Part 2. The submission and categorisation of JFE do not address whether the domestic
industry is engaged in manufacturing “directly competitive” articles.
58. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 25 grades
with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis.
59. Additionally, JFE has stated that for certain grades, the goods supplied by the domestic
industry do not match the quality supplied by Japanese exporters. The Authority notes
that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product
from the scope of the PUC. The Authority also notes that there is no requirement under
the law that the domestic industry must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the
country and each individual user on a standalone basis. Furthermore, the lack of
customer approval is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from
the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer
would have the ability to deny approval to the domestic industry’s products to seek
exclusion during trade remedy measures.
60. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The Authority notes that the applicant
has provides various invoices of steel covered under IS 513. Furthermore, the applicant
has provided several invoices covering cold rolled steel to automotive companies such
as *** etc. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to
accept the exclusion the requests filed by JFE.
61. Hot Rolled coils - JFE Steel Corporation had asked for the exclusion of 9 different
grades of hot rolled Coils from the scope of the PUC. The exclusion requests have been
divided into two broad categories – (a) the products / grades that the DI does not
produce (1 grade), (b) the products for which DI does not have customer approval (8
grades). All the grades of hot rolled steel are stated to have an end use for the purposes
of “automobile”.
62. It is noted that all these grades are covered under IS-5986 and IS-2062. The submission
and categorisation of JFE do not address whether the domestic industry is engaged in
manufacturing “directly competitive” articles.
63. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 9 grades
with identical specifications.
64. The Authority notes that the lack of customer approval is not a valid ground for seeking
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as
the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval of the domestic
industry’s products to ensure that such products are excluded during trade remedy
measures.
65. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The Authority notes that the applicant
has provided various invoices of steel covered under IS 5986 and IS 2062. Furthermore,
the applicant has provided invoices of hot rolled steel which were sold to automotive
companies. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable
to accept the exclusion requests filed by JFE.
66. Plate Mill Plates - JFE Steel Corporation had asked for the exclusion of various grades
of plate mill plates from the scope of the PUC. The exclusion requests have been divided
into three broad categories – (a) the products / grades that the DI does not produce, (b)
lesser quality of the products by DI, (c) capacity constraints of the DI. All the grades of
plate mill plates are stated to have an end use for the purposes of “construction machine”
and “pipe”.
67. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every grade with
identical specifications.
68. JFE has stated that for certain grades, the goods supplied by the domestic industry do
not match the quality supplied by Japanese exporters. The Authority notes that
differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from
the scope of the PUC.
69. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The Authority notes that the applicant
has provided various invoices evidencing the sale of various grades of hot rolled plates
having common and overlapping usage with that provided by JFE. Therefore, the
Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion
requests filed by JFE.
70. Clad Steel Plate: JFE Steel Corporation had asked for the exclusion of various grades
of clad steel plate from the scope of the PUC. The exclusion requests have been
submitted on two grounds: (a) Indian mills cannot produce alike / identical product, and
(b) Indian mills do not have approval of critical industry end users for Roll bonded Clad
Plate. All the grades of clad steel plate are stated to have an end use for the purposes of
oil, gas, fertilizer, petrochemical or hydroelectric.
71. As stated earlier, the Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for clad steel plates.
The Authority therefore agrees for the exclusion of clad steel plates from the scope of
the PUC. All the grades for which JFE has sought exclusion that fall under the category
of clad steel plates are consequently excluded from the scope of the PUC.
f) Nippon Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd., Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Centre Pvt. Ltd., Renault Nissan Automotive
India Pvt. Ltd. and JFE Shoji India Pvt. Ltd.
72. These interested parties reiterated the exclusion requests made by JFE and Nippon Steel
Corporation. Since the Authority has examined the exclusion requests filed by JFE and
Nippon Steel Corporation above, there is no necessity to re-examine the same.
g) The Society for Indian Automobile Manufacturers (“SIAM”)
73. The Society for Indian Automobile Manufacturers (“SIAM”) has sought exclusion of
218 grades/types having automotive applications. SIAM claims that the domestic
industry does not manufacture the grades with the precise technical specifications
required by its Members. The submissions of SIAM do not address whether the
domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing “directly competitive” articles.
74. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each of these 218 grades with
identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis. The Authority has examined SIAM’s request for exclusion
of 218 grades/types. Among the 218 types/grades, the Authority notes that certain
products, such as electrogalvanized steel, have already been excluded from the scope
of the PUC in terms of paragraph 4 of the Initiation Notification. As stated earlier, the
Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for Nickel Coated Steel, EG Zinc-Nickel
Coated Steel, Bi Metal Sheet, Aluminium Coated Steel, Aluminium-Silicon Coated
Steel, Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon Coated Steel, etc. The specific grades for which
SIAM has sought exclusion that fall under these categories are consequently excluded
from the scope of the PUC.
75. With respect to the other grades, the applicant has provided invoices covering a wide
range of HR, CR and Metallic Coated steel, that were sold to automotive companies
such as *** etc., demonstrating sales of articles that are “directly competitive” with the
imported products identified by SIAM.
76. SIAM has also specifically requested for exclusion of products based on the tensile
strengths. SIAM requests for the exclusion of products ultra-high tensile steel. The
applicant has provided various sales invoices of with steel with diverse tensile strength.
Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by these
interested parties pertaining to grades used in automotive application other than the
grades that have been accepted by the domestic industry.
77. The Authority further notes that among its request for exclusion of specific
grades/types, SIAM has also made a broad and generic request for the exclusion of
“Base HR (POSCO)”. The Authority notes that such broad request of HR steel imported
by POSCO is not only unreasonable, but also legally untenable. It is well established
that the Authority does not grant company-specific product exclusions. Additionally,
SIAM does not explain why the “Base HR (POSCO)” is not directly competitive with
the articles manufactured by the domestic industry. Hence, the Authority is unable to
accept SIAM’s request for exclusion of “Base HR (POSCO)”.
h) Kia India Pvt. Ltd.
78. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of 34 grades/types of products on
the grounds that (a) the domestic industry does not manufacture the products (17); (b)
the domestic industry has insufficient capacity to supply the grades in sufficient
quantities (12); and (c) there are quality issues associated with the grades supplied by
the domestic industry (5).
79. The Authority notes that 2 of the 34 grades/types of products, are aluminium coated and
aluminium-silicon coated, which have been excluded as stated earlier. With respect to
the remaining 32 grades/types of products for which Kia India Pvt. Ltd. has sought
exclusion, the Authority notesthat each of these 32 grades/types of products are covered
in the exclusion request filed by SIAM, which the Authority has already examined
above. The Authority therefore sees no reason to re-examine such exclusion requests.
i) S R K steels, Daeseong India Automotive Private Limited, KSH Automative Pvt
Ltd, HYOSUNG TNC Corporation, PYUNG HWA India Pvt Ltd, Arun Agarwal,
Daechang India seat Company Pvt Limited, Pennar Industries Limited,
Construction Federation of India, Ferrum Extreme Engineering Pvt Ltd, Daebu
Automative Seat India Pvt Ltd, YSI Automative Pvt Limited, SKH M India
Private Limited, DMC Automative Pvt Ltd, Talbros Automative Components Ltd,
HL Mando Anand India Pvt Ltd, Daechang Seat Automative Pvt Ltd, Federal
Mogul Sealings India Limited, GESTAMP Automative Chennai Private Limited,
Hariom Pipe Industries Limited, HSI Automative Private Limited , HWASHIN
Automotive India Private limited, Windar Renewable Energy Private limited,
Hyundai Transys Lear Automotive India Private limited, IFB Automative Private
Limited, JBM Auto Limited, JBM Ogihara Automative India Limited, JEANUVS
Private India Limited, Jaya Springs, KM Seat Company Private Limited, KAD &
Co. Pvt Limited, Karison Profiles Pvt Limited, Krishca Strapping Solutions
Limited, MACHANI RAMESH ENGINEERING PVT LTD, NVH India Auto
Parts Private Limited, PHA India Pvt Ltd, Purohit Steel India LTD, Pushpanjali
Drums Private Limited, Severstal, Bundy India Limited, KWANG Sung Brake
India Pvt Ltd, PHA India Pvt Ltd, RIKUN MANUFACTURING PRIVATE
LIMITED, SRK STEELS, Fine Components and Tools Pvt Ltd, Komos
Automotive India Pvt Ltd, UE PRESS TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED, Sincerity
Innovation Technology India Private Limited, Sungwoo Stamping India Pvt
Limited, Tadpole Engineering Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Velmurugan Heavy Engg.
Inds. Pvt. Ltd., Wooyoung Automotive india Pvt. Ltd, Kumkang Machinery India
Pvt. Ltd., VW Impex, Federation of Associations of Maharashtra (FAM),
Federation of Kutch Industries, TAIIN Steel Fab and Infra Pvt Ltd, KSH India,
PCA AUTOMOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, POS-Hyundai Steel MFG
Pvt Ltd
80. The Authority notes that these interested parties have filed exclusion requests without
specifying the specific grades/types of products for which it seeks exclusion. Several of
these interested parties have sought for a broad exclusion of “alloy steel and ultra high tension steel” citing that imports are necessary because of “import policy conditions”,
“good relations” with foreign producers, and the “difficulty” in purchasing such
products from Indian Producers. These interested parties have neither substantiated
their exclusion requests with valid and justifiable grounds, nor have they provided the
specific grades/types of steel for which they seek exclusion. The Authority is unable to
consider such broad and generic exclusion requests. Notwithstanding this, the applicant
has provided various invoices of with steel with diverse tensile strength. Therefore, the
Authority is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by these interested parties
pertaining to grades used in automotive application.
j) Indian Pipes Manufacturers Association (IPMA), Man Industries India Limited,
Mega Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Seamless Limited, Ratnamani Metals & Tubes
Limited and Welspun Corp Ltd. and Jindal India Limited
81. These interested parties have requested for exclusion of various API Grades. These
interested parties have conceded that the domestic industry manufactures API Grades.
The domestic industry has provided various invoices, covering API Certified Steel. The
domestic industry has also provided invoices for the sales of API grade steel to several
companies, including ***.
82. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. Given that the domestic industry has supplied API Grade Steel to pipe
manufacturers, the Authority is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by these
companies for the purposes of the preliminary findings.
k) POSCO, Korea RP
83. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of a total of 111 types / grades of
products citing reasons of: (a) quality concerns, (b) products not produced by the
domestic industry, (c) vendor certification, (d) capacity constraints of the domestic
industry.
84. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 111 types
/ grades with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law
that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each
individual user on a standalone basis.
85. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Furthermore, the lack of vendor
certification is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope
of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned vendor would have the
ability to deny certification of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that
such products do not attract trade remedy measures.
86. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The interested party has sought the
broad exclusion of Hot Rolled Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (HRNO) and Cold Rolled
Full Hard (CRFH) citing quality issues affecting its production of Cold Rolled Non Oriented Electrical Steel. The Authority notes that this is not a valid ground of exclusion
as already discussed above. The interested party has also not provided any precise
specification of the product for which it seeks exclusion. Furthermore, the applicant has
provided invoices evidencing sale of HR for industrial application and CRFH. The
Authority therefore for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the
exclusion request.
87. The interested party has sought the broad exclusion of HR Substrates of Carbon Steel
(or Automotive Steel) citing issues relating to quality and vendor approval. The
Authority notes that these are not valid grounds of exclusion as already discussed above.
The interested party has also not provided any specification of the product for which it
seeks exclusion. Furthermore, the applicant has provided several invoices evidencing
its sales of to the automotive industry. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
88. The interested party has sought the exclusion of more than 57 grades of POSCO
Magnesium Aluminium Alloy Coating Product. The interested party has also sought the
exclusion citing quality concerns, vendor certification, and certain differences in
physical and chemical properties. The Authority notes that these are not valid grounds
of exclusion as already discussed above. The Authority notes that the applicant has
produced invoices demonstrating its sales of Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium coated
products, and also demonstrated supplies to solar power developers or equipment
producers. The Authority notes that the interested party has failed to establish that
different thicknesses or the different chemical and physical properties of the concerned
product are not directly competitive products and do not have common and overlapping
end usage with the domestic like article. The Authority therefore for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
89. The interested party has sought exclusion of more than 18 grades of “Super High
Carbon and Alloy High Carbon Steel” citing issues relating to quality and the domestic
industry’s inability to provide the same. The Authority notes that quality issue are not
valid grounds of exclusion. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the
law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and
every of these 18 types / grades with identical specifications. The domestic industry has
provided several invoices demonstrating sale of steel with high carbon content, as also
invoices, which are supplied to automotive, engineering and machinery manufacturers,
such as ***. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable
to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
90. The interested party has sought exclusion of more than 11 grades of “Hot-rolled and
Plate products under American Petroleum Institute (‘API’)” citing issues relating to
quality and the domestic industry’s inability to provide the complete range of API
products. The Authority notes that quality issues are not valid grounds of exclusion. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 11 types / grades
with identical specifications. The Authority further notes that the applicant has provided
various invoices evidencing sales of the API grades as provided by the interested party.
Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of the preliminary findings, is unable to accept
the exclusion request of the interested party.
91. The interested party, under the broad category of Automotive Steel, has sought the
exclusion of (A) Galvanised or Galvannealed steel for Automotive use citing issues of
supply constraints, the Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law that
the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis, (B) more than 2 grades of Ultra-High Strength Steel citing
the applicant’s inability to manufacture the said product, the Authority notes that the
applicant has provided invoices demonstrating sales of products to automobile
companies with diverse tensile strengths, (C) more than 4 grades of PHT (Post Heat
Treatment) Steel Grades citing he applicant’s inability to manufacture the said product,
the Authority notes that the applicant has provided invoices demonstrating sales of PHT
Steel grades, (D) more than 6 grades of Advanced High Strength Steel citing that the
applicant is not able to produce all grades, the Authority notes that there is no
requirement under law for the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every
grade, (E) more than 9 grades of Automotive Steel for Exposed parts including Bake
Hardenings Steel citing issues relating to vendor approval, the Authority notes that
vendor approval is not a ground for exclusion, and (F) “Mild Steel for A-Class
unexposed parts with complex shape & Pickled and Oiled steel for Automotive Chassis
parts” citing issues relating to vendor approval, the Authority notes that vendor approval
is not a ground for exclusion.
l) POSCO Maharashtra Steel Pvt. Ltd
92. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of a total of 52 proprietary types /
grades of products, specifically for itself, citing reasons of: (a) quality concerns, (b)
vendor certification.
93. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every of these 52 types
/ grades with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law
that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each
individual user on a standalone basis.
94. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Furthermore, the lack of vendor
certification is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope
of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned vendor would have the
ability to deny certification of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that
such products do not attract trade remedy measures.
95. The interested party has sought the exclusion of 17 proprietary grades of Cold Rolled
Full Hard (CRFH) and Hot Rolled Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (HRNO) citing quality
issues. The Authority notes that quality issues are not grounds of exclusion. The
Authority further notes that proprietary names are company specific and cannot be used
by other producers. The Authority notes that the applicant has provided invoices
demonstrating its sales of CRFH. Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of the
preliminary findings, is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
96. The interested party has sought the exclusion of 35 proprietary grades of “Substrates of
Carbon Steel (or Automotive Steel) for POSCO MH” citing quality issues and lack of
vendor approval. The Authority notes that these are not valid grounds for exclusion.
The Authority further notes that proprietary names are company specific and cannot be
used by other producers. The Authority notes that company-specific product exclusions
cannot be granted. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is
unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
97. The Authority determines that at the stage of the Preliminary Findings, it would be
sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive
articles”. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has supplied various invoices
evidencing its supplies to the automotive companies such as *** etc.
m) POSCO SteeleON, Korea RO
98. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of a total of 4 types / grades of
products namely: (1) Aluminized Steel (Brand Name: ALCOSTA), (2) Colour Coated
Electro-Galvanised Steel, (3) Coated Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium (Zn-Al-Mg) Alloy
Steel (Brand Name: Macosta), (4)Zinc-Aluminium (Zn-Al) Alloy steel (Brand Name:
ALZASTA).
99. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each and every type / grade with
identical specifications.
100. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Furthermore, the lack of vendor
certification is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope
of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned vendor would have the
ability to deny certification of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that
such products do not attract trade remedy measures.
101. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. The interested party has sought the
exclusion of Aluminized Steel (Brand Name: ALCOSTA). As stated earlier, the
Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for Aluminized Steel.
102. The Authority understands that Metallic Coated Electrogalvanized Steel would be
covered within the exclusion in the notice of initiation, namely, “Coated – electro
galvanized steel’. The Authority also understands the colour coated electro galvanized
steel is nothing, but colour coated steel. Accordingly, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by POSCO with
respect to colour coated electrogalvanized steel.
103. The interested party has sought the exclusion of ‘Coated Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium
(Zn-Al-Mg) Alloy Steel (Brand Name: Macosta)’ citing, (a) differences in quality
between its products and the applicant’s product, (b) specialized application and vendor
certification, and (c) lack of domestic alternatives. The Authority notes that quality
differences and vendor certifications are not valid grounds of exclusion as discussed
above. The Authority notes that the law does not require the applicant to prove the
manufacture of the grades with identical specifications. The Authority further notes that
the applicant has provided invoices demonstrating its sales of Coated Zinc-Aluminium Magnesium (Zn-Al-Mg) Alloy Steel. The Authority therefore is unable to accept the
exclusion requests of the interested party.
104. The interested party has sought the exclusion of ‘Zinc-Aluminium (Zn-Al) Alloy Steel
(Brand Name: ALZASTA)’ citing, (a) differences in quality between its products and
the applicant’s product, (b) premium pricing of its product. The Authority notes that
these are not valid grounds of exclusion. The Authority notes that the applicant has
provided invoices demonstrating its sales of Zinc-Aluminium Alloy Steel. The
Authority therefore is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
n) AMNS India Limited and AMNS Khopoli
105. AMNS India and AMNS Khopoli requested for the exclusion of certain grades imported
from Nippon Steel Corporation. The Authority has already examined the exclusion
request filed by Nippon Steel Corporation above.
o) LG Electronics India Ltd.
106. LG Electronics India Ltd. has requested for the exclusion of 4 grades/types used in
refrigerators, washing machines and other appliances. LG states that the domestic
industry does not manufacture such grades/types and that the domestic industry does
not have commercial sales and commercial supplies of the relevant grades. LG further
submits that the applicants are unable to meet the quality standards and the quantity
requirements of the customers. LG has further requested that the authority replace the
word “include” in the definition of the PUC with the word “namely” to clearly indicate
that the PUC only covers the five product categories and not the products that are not
being manufactured by the domestic industry. The Authority notes that the coverage of
product categories needs to be clear and specific and therefore agrees with the request
for change from ‘include’ to ‘namely’.
107. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot
be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack
of customer approval (where suppliers are designated by project owners) is also not a
valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is
susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval
of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract
trade remedy measures.
108. As stated earlier, the Authority has accepted the exclusion requests for Laminated EGI
sheets in the scope of the PUC. With respect to the other grades/types, the domestic
industry has provided various invoices covering pre-painted galvanized steel and pre painted galvannealed steel, which are used in home appliances. Additionally, the
invoices provided by the applicant indicate sales to consumer electronic companies
such as *** etc. Therefore, no grounds exist for the exclusion of the said articles from
the scope of the PUC. LG has also requested that the Authority clarify that the
exemption of “Coated-Electro Galvanized Steel” covers “All types of EGI including
coated/laminated/printed/painted EGI”. The applicant has agreed for the exclusion of
laminated EGI from the scope of the PUC. The Authority understands that Metallic
Coated Electrogalvanized Steel would be covered within the exclusion in the notice of
initiation, namely, “Coated – electro galvanized steel’. However, the Authority is unable
to accept the exclusion request filed by LG with respect to printed/painted
electrogalvanized steel.
p) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.
109. Godrej has requested for the exclusion of 8 grades/types of products that are used in
home appliances (3) and pressure equipment divisions (5). Godrej has further requested
that the authority replace the word “include” in the definition of the PUC with the word
“namely” to clearly indicate that the PUC only covers the five product categories and
not the products that are not being manufactured by the domestic industry. The
Authority notes that the coverage of product categories needs to be clear and specific
and therefore agrees with the request for change from ‘include’ to ‘namely’.
110. With respect to the 3 grades/types of products used in home appliances, Godrej has
submitted that such products are not manufactured by the domestic industry. Godrej
claims that the applicant companies have admitted that they are unable meet the
technical specifications required by Godrej.
111. With respect to the 5 grades/types used in pressure equipment devices, Godrej admits
that the domestic industry manufactures and supplies the said grades/types of products,
however, it contends that the technical specifications of the products supplied by the
domestic industry do not meet the users’ requirements. Godrej argues that on account
of the differences in technical specifications, the 8 grades/types are not “like” articles
to the domestically produced articles.
112. The Authority notes that unlike the anti-dumping agreement where the scope of the
PUC is limited to “like articles”, the legal standard for the scope of the PUC under the
safeguard law includes “directly competitive” articles.
113. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each these 8 grades with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user (such as
Godrej) on a standalone basis. Furthermore, the quality concerns are also not a valid
ground for seeking exclusion of a product.
114. The domestic industry has provided various invoices covering pre-painted galvanized
steel and galvannealed steel, which are used in home appliances. Additionally, the
invoices provided by the applicant indicate sales of such products to consumer
electronic companies such as *** etc. Therefore, no grounds exist for the exclusion of
the 8 grades/types identified by Godrej from the scope of the PUC. Godrej has also
requested that the Authority clarify that the exemption of “Coated-Electro Galvanized
Steel” covers “All types of EGI including laminated vinyl-coated”. The Authority
understands that Metallic Coated Electrogalvanized Steel would be covered within the
exclusion in the notice of initiation, namely, “Coated – electro galvanized steel’.
However, in view of insufficient details, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Godrej with respect to
laminated vinyl coated electrogalvanized steel.
q) Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.
115. Panasonic has requested for the exclusion of Pre-coated Vinyl coated sheets which are
used in refrigerator doors. The Authority has already considered and evaluated similar
exclusion requests of LG and Godrej & Boyce above. The Authority thus is not re examining the same exclusion request made by Panasonic.
r) SSAB Swedish Steel India Pvt. Ltd.
116. SSAB has requested for the exclusion of 51 proprietary grades/types of steel having
application in transportation, mining, cement, construction equipment. SSAB states that
the proprietary grades/types imported by them “outperform” the equivalent grade
produced by the domestic industry and “offers additional value”.
117. At the outset, the Authority notes that the 51 grades/types for which SSAB has sought
exclusion are proprietary name of a grade/type produced by a company. Proprietary
names are company specific and cannot be used by other producers. The Authority notes
that company-specific product exclusions cannot be granted. Additionally, SSAB does
not dispute that the domestic industry produces equivalent grades of steel.
118. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot
be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack
of customer approval is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from
the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer
would have the ability to deny approval of the domestic industry’s products thereby
ensuring that such products do not attract trade remedy measures. The Authority notes
that the domestic industry has filed various invoices covering a wide range of High
Strength, High Carbon Steel and Heavy Plates, which is directly competitive with the
51 grades/types for which SSAB has sought exclusion. Therefore, the Authority, for the
purpose of preliminary findings, is unable to accept the exclusion requests of SSAB.
s) Ashok Leyland Defence Systems Ltd.
119. Ashok Leyland Defence has requested for exclusion of 26 grades/types. The Authority
notes that each of these 26 grades/types of products are covered in the exclusion request
filed by SSAB, which the Authority has examined above. The Authority therefore sees
no reason to re-examine such exclusion requests.
t) Tay Nam Steel manufacturing and Trading Co., Ltd.
120. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of GI, GL, PPGI, PPGL. The
interested party has provided no further information regarding the precise grades/types
of products for which it seeks exclusion. The Authority notes that there is no
requirement under the law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it
manufactures each grade with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no
requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for
the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The domestic industry has
filed various invoices covering colour coated and metallic coated, GI, GL and PPGI
steel. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to
accept the exclusion request filed by Tay Nam Steel.
u) Kobe Steel Limited
121. The interested party has requested for the exclusion of 8 grades of Cold Rolled Coils.
Kobe Steel Limited relies on past anti-dumping investigations of the Authority to argue
that specific grades that are not manufactured by the domestic industry must be
excluded from the scope of the PUC. As stated above, unlike the anti-dumping
agreement where the scope of the PUC is limited to “like articles”, the legal standard
for the scope of the PUC under the safeguard law includes “directly competitive”
articles. Therefore, the reliance placed by Kobe on past anti-dumping determinations is
not tenable.
122. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The applicant has submitted various sales invoices of steel with
diverse tensile strength. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings
is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by these interested parties pertaining to
grades used in automotive application.
v) Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and Metal One Corporation
123. The interested parties have requested for the exclusion of 12 grades/types of steel. The
interested parties submit that the domestic industry does not product the 12 grades/types
of steel or like articles. As stated above, the Authority has accepted the exclusion of
Aluminium Coated Steel, Aluminium Silicon Coated, Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon
Coated Steel, Nickel Coated Steel, Copper Plated Steel, Titanium Clad Plates, Bimetals,
etc. from the scope of the PUC. The grades of steel identified by Metal One Corporation
that fall under these categories are consequently excluded from the scope of the PUC.
Metal One has further requested that the authority replace the word “include” in the
definition of the PUC with the word “namely” to clearly indicate that the PUC only
covers the five product categories and not the products that are not being manufactured
by the domestic industry The Authority notes that the coverage of product categories
needs to be clear and specific and therefore agrees with the request for change from
‘include’ to ‘namely’.
124. The interested parties have requested for the exclusion of medium to high tensile hot
rolled and cold rolled steel coils, hot rolled steel plates, hot rolled steel plates (high
tensile), hot rolled abrasion resistant steel plates, ZAM and galvannealed steel coils on
the grounds that the domestic producers are unable to produce the required
specifications, problems with quality and lack of necessary customer approvals. The
interested parties further submit that the grades of steel are customized as per the user
requirements, which the domestic industry is unable to provide.
125. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority notes that the interested party has not demonstrated that
the products supplied by the domestic industry do not have common and overlapping
end usage and are not directly competitive.
126. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack of customer
approval is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of
the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer would have the
ability to deny approval of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such
products do not attract trade remedy measures.
127. The Authority notes that it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”. With respect to Metal One
Corporation’s request for exclusion of steel with certain tensile strength, the applicant
has provided various invoices of with steel with diverse tensile strength. The Authority
further notes that the domestic industry has also provided invoices demonstrating sales
of various grades of hot rolled steel plate, hot rolled steel abrasion resistant steel plates,
ZAM (Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium) and Galvannealed Steel Coil. Therefore, the
Authority is unable to accept the claim of Metal One Corporation for the exclusion of
cold rolled steel coil, hot rolled steel coil, hot rolled steel plate, hot rolled steel plates
(high tensile), hot rolled abrasion resistant steel plates, ZAM (Zinc-Aluminium Magnesium) and Galvannealed Steel Coil. The Authority further notes that the
interested party has sought clarification with regard to Ecokote (Tin-Zinc Coated Steel).
However, the interested party has neither provided technical specification of the product
nor the end usage. In the absence of such information, the Authority is unable to
determine whether such product is like or directly competitive with the domestically
produced product therefore the Authority is unable to confirm whether Ecokote falls
outside the scope of the PUC. Metal One Corporation has also requested that the
Authority remove the word “coated” from the exemption to “Coated-Electro
Galvanized Steel”. The Authority understands that Metallic Coated Electrogalvanized
Steel would be covered within the exclusion in the notice of initiation, namely, “Coated
– electro galvanized steel’. However, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Metal One Corporation in
this regard.
w) Shivalik Bimetals Controls Limited
128. The Shivalik Bimetals has requested for the exclusion of 10 grades/types. Shivalik
Bimetals claims that the domestic industry does not manufacture these 10 grades/types
and that the equivalent grades produced by the domestic industry “are of inferior quality
and less-cost effective”. Shivalik Bimetals has further requested that the authority
replace the word “include” in the definition of the PUC with the word “namely” to
clearly indicate that the PUC only covers the five product categories and not the
products that are not being manufactured by the domestic industry. The Authority notes
that the coverage of product categories needs to be clear and specific and therefore
agrees with the request for change from ‘include’ to ‘namely’.
129. The Authority notes that Shivalik Bimetals’ in its submissions has admitted that the
domestic industry is engaged in manufacturing equivalent grades, albeit of lower
quality and differing in certain physical and chemical properties. It is further relevant
to note that the interested party has contended that the manufacturers who have the
capability to manufacture cannot produce it economically due to low volumes. The
Authority notes that, the claim by the interested party that the domestic industry cannot
produce the grades for which exclusion has been sought economically at low volumes
suggests customer preference for imports due to their cheap prices and loss of potential
sales by the domestic industry. As stated above there is no requirement under the law
for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade
with identical specifications. The domestic industry has produced various invoices
covering special alloys. Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the submissions of
Shivalik at the stage of preliminary findings.
x) Manaksia Steels Limited
130. Manaksia Steels has requested for the exclusion Hot Rolled Steel Coils in widths of
1250 mm and below thicknesses of 2 mm. Manaksia claims that the domestic industry
does not manufacture coils with thickness less than 2mm and width below 1250 mm.
However, Manaksia has admitted while the domestic industry does have the capacity to
manufacture coils with thicknesses below 2mm and width below 1250 mm, it does not
do so out of commercial considerations. Therefore, the possibility of lack of sales due to
the domestic industry not being able to fetch a reasonable price for the equivalent grade
as a consequence of surge of imports and serious injury on account of it cannot be ruled
out.
131. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. Furthermore, it is by Makasia’s own admission that while the domestic
industry has the capability as well as capacity to manufacture and supply steel with
thicknesses below 2mm and width below 1250 mm it does not do so out of commercial
considerations. Therefore, the possibility of lack of sales due to the domestic industry
not being able to fetch a reasonable price for the equivalent grade as a consequence of
surge of imports and serious injury on account of it cannot be ruled out.
132. The domestic industry has produced a wide variety of invoices covering different
thicknesses and widths of HR steel. Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the
exclusion of steel with thicknesses below 2mm and width below 1250 mm at this stage.
y) Tata Motors
133. Tata Motors has requested for the exclusion of 6 grades/types of steel. Tata Motors
submits that the grades are not manufactured in India, the domestic industry is unable
to consistently supply sufficient quantities of the grades and the grades imported from
Japan are of superior quality.
134. Among these grades, as stated earlier, the request for exclusion of Aluminium Coated
Steel, Aluminium Silicon Coated and Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon Coated Steel has
been accepted. The grades of steel that fall under this category are consequently
excluded from the scope of the PUC. The Authority further notes that stainless steel has
already been excluded from the scope of the PUC in terms of paragraph 4 of the
initiation notification.
135. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority further notes that differences in quality of the products
cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally,
the lack of customer approval (where suppliers are designated by project owners) is also
not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since
this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny
approval of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not
attract trade remedy measures.
136. With respect to the remining product types/grades having automotive application, the
Authority notes that Tata Motors has not provided the corresponding Indian Standard
for the grades for which it seeks exclusion. The applicant has provided several invoices
covering a wide range of HR, CR and Metallic Coated sold to automotive companies
such as *** etc., which demonstrates that the domestic industry has supplied articles
that have common and overlapping usage with the products for which Tata Motors has
sought an exclusion. These products are therefore directly competitive. Therefore, the
Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion
requests filed by Tata Motors.
z) ACMA, NRB Bearing, Sharda Motors Industries Limited, National Engineering
Industries Ltd, AISIN Automobiles
137. The interested parties have requested exclusion for 35 grades/types having usage in
Automotive industry citing quality issues and capacity constraints. For some grades,
interested parties have not provided relevant Indian standard. The Authority further
notes that exclusion request for certain grades of rubber coated steel identified by these
interested parties has been accepted as stated earlier.
138. The Authority notes that this interested party has conceded that they procure some of
the grades from domestic producers. It has however been claimed that, claim that the
quality and quantity of the grades produced by the domestic producers is not up to the
requirement. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a
ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Similarly, there is no
requirement under the law that the domestic industry must be able to fulfil the entire
demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis.
139. The Authority notes that the applicant has provided several invoices covering a wide
range of HR, CR and Metallic Coated sold to automotive companies such as *** etc,
which demonstrates that the domestic industry has supplied articles that have common
and overlapping usage with the products for which interested parties have sought an
exclusion. These products are therefore directly competitive. Therefore, the Authority
for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed
by interested parties.
aa) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
140. Maruti Suzuki has requested for the exclusion of 22 grades/types of steel. Maruti
contends that the grades should be excluded since (a) they are not manufactured in India
(11); (b) the domestic industry lack sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of the
downstream industry (6) and the grades are only recently being developed in India (5).
141. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
142. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally, the lack of customer
approval (where suppliers are designated by project owners) is also not a valid ground
for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible
to misuse as the concerned customer would have the ability to deny approval of the
domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract trade
remedy measures. The Authority further notes that the domestic industry has provided
various invoices demonstrating the sales steel to Maruti Suzuki.
143. The applicant has provided several invoices covering a wide range of HR, CR and
Metallic Coated sold to automotive companies such as *** etc., which demonstrates
that the domestic industry has supplied articles that have common and overlapping
usage with the products for which Maruti Suzuki has sought an exclusion. These
products are therefore directly competitive. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests.
bb) Jay Bharat Maruti Limited
144. Jay Bharat Maruti Limited (“JBM”) has sought for the exclusion of 6 grades/types of
steel from the scope of the PUC. JBM states that the said grades are not produced in
India. Exclusion of 4 out of the 6 grades for which JBM has sought exclusion, which
fall under the category of Aluminium Coated Steel and Nickel Coated Steel has already
been accepted.
145. With respect to the two other grades, the domestic industry has provided several
invoices covering HRPO Coils that are directly competitive with the grades for which
JBM has sought exclusion. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the
law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each
grade with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that
the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis. Given that the domestic industry has produced invoices
covering various grades of HRPO Coils that have common and overlapping usage with
the grades for which the JBM has sought exclusion, the Authority, for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by JBM.
cc) Katsushiro Matex India Pvt. Ltd.
146. Katsushiro has requested for the exclusion of 4 grades/types of steel supplied by JFE
Corporation on the grounds that the needed sizes are not available locally, the local
suppliers cannot meet the technical specifications and the minimum order quantity of
the domestic producers are higher than the foreign suppliers’.
147. The Authority notes that Katsushiro has sought exclusion for the 4 grades/types of steel
supplied by JFE Corporation. Since the Authority has already addressed the exclusion
request of JFE Corporation above, there is no necessity to re-examine such exclusion
requests.
dd) CSCI Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
148. CSCI has requested for the exclusion of Cold Rolled Full Hardened Electrical Strips
conforming to IS 18316 of 2023, which falls under the definition of Silicon Electrical
Steel Strips from the scope of the PUC.
149. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The domestic industry has provided various invoices covering sales
of Cold Rolled Full Hardened Steel. Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the
exclusion request filed by CSCI.
ee) CU Built Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Senvion
Wind Technology Private Limited
150. The interested parties have requested for exclusion of steel plates for wind turbines and
prime steel for wind turbine towers. The Authority notes that there is no requirement
under the law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures
each grade with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the
law that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each
individual user on a standalone basis. The Authority notes that the applicant has
provided various invoices demonstrating sale of Hot Rolled Plates, for a wide variety
of application, including wind turbines. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by these interested
parties.
ff) Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke from Germany
151. Dillinger has requested exclusion for 76 grades of Hot Rolled Plate Mill Plates that fall
under nine subcategories, namely, High-strength line pipe plate, Sour service pressure
vessel plate, High-strength low alloy pressure vessel plate, High-strength
thermomechanically-rolled pressure vessel plate, Pressure vessel plate for high
temperature application, Pressure vessel plate for low temperature application
(cryogenic), Abrasion-resistant steel plate, High-strength fine grained structural steel
plate, Offshore fine-grained structural steel plate, Line pipe plate. Dillinger submits that
the plates for which they seek exclusion are used to manufacture line pipe for the
production of oil and gas pipelines, high-strength fine-grained structural steel, in the
construction of demanding structures such as bridges, in the manufacture of heavy
machinery such as earth-moving and mining equipment and pressure vessel steel, in the
manufacture of equipment for oil and gas, chemical or pharmaceutical industries, such
as reactors, heat exchangers, boilers or pressurized tanks, often sour-gas resistant’ from
the scope of investigation.
152. Dillinger submits that the domestic industry does not produce the specific grades of
steel for which they have sought exclusion. The Authority notes that there is no
requirement under the law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it
manufactures each grade with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no
requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for
the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The domestic industry has
provided various invoices covering Hot Rolled Plate Mill Plates and API Certified Steel
that are used in varied applications such as construction, heavy machinery, pressure
vessels, etc., which are directly competitive with the 76 grades/types for which
Dillinger has sought exclusion. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Aktien-Gesellschaft der
Dillinger Hüttenwerke.
gg) Isgec Hitachi Zosen Ltd.
153. Interested Party has requested exclusion for 9 grades of Alloy and Non-alloy Steel
Plates and Clad plate covering various grades on the grounds that the grade is not
manufactured in India and the Indian producers are unable to meet the specifications
laid out by Engineering companies and overseas licensors.
154. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority further notes that differences in quality of the products
cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally,
the lack of approval from overseas licensors or engineering companies is also not a
valid ground for seeking exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is
susceptible to misuse as the concerned person would have the ability to deny approval
of the domestic industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract
trade remedy measures.
155. The domestic industry has provided various invoices covering a wide range of Hot
Rolled Plates that was sold to engineering companies such as *** etc. Therefore, the
Authority, for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion
request filed by Isgec Hitachi.
hh) Ashok Leyland Limited
156. The interested party has requested for exclusion of 4 grades/types falling under the
category of Aluminium-Silicon Coated, wear resistant steel and Cold Rolled Galva
annealed steel on the grounds that these grades are not produced in India or the domestic
industry does not have the capacity to meet the demand in India.
157. As stated earlier the exclusion of aluminium-silica coated steel from the scope of the
PUC has been accepted. For the remaining grades, the Authority is of the view that there
is no requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire
demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The Authority
notes that the domestic industry has provided various invoices covering wear-resistant
steel and galvannealed steel sold to several parties, including Ashok Leyland, that have
common and overlapping end usage with the grades for which Ashok Leyland has
sought exclusion. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is
unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
ii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private limited
158. Interested party has requested exclusion for Aluminized steel or Aluminium coated
steel. This has been accepted as mentioned in earlier paragraphs.
jj) Exedy India limited
159. The interested party has requested exclusion of C70-High Carbon Cold Rolled Steel
and SCM435-High Carbon Cold Rolled Steel having usage in Automotive sector due
to technology not being available with domestic producers.
160. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The domestic industry has provided invoices for the sales of articles
that are directly competitive with the C70 and SCM435 grades
for which Exedy has sought exclusion. It may be stated that the domestic industry
supplies products that have overlapping usage with the products imported for
automotive application. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings
is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
kk) KG Dongbu Steel, AVIZA Technologies, JR and Company, Maxglobal Techno
systems, NEWCORE GLOBAL PVT LTD, Prestomac Finishers, TAIIN Steel Fab
and Infra Pvt Ltd and M&B Engineering
161. Interested parties have requested exclusion of 2 grades/types of pre painted and 3
grades/types galvanized steel that are covered under the standards IS 15965, IS 14246,
IS 15961 and IS 513, on the ground that the domestic industry lacks capacity to supply
the grades in sufficient quantities.
162. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority notes that these interested parties have conceded that
the domestic producer are able to produce the 5 grades/types of steel for which they
have sought exclusion. The concern of the interested party is that the domestic
producers are not able to supply sufficient quantities of the grades/types. The Authority
notes that there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil
the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The
Authority determines that at the stage of the Preliminary Findings, it would be sufficient
to examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive articles”.
163. The domestic industry has provided various invoices of steel covered under IS 513 and
IS 15961. Additionally, the domestic industry has provided various invoices
demonstrating sales of pre-painted galvanized sheets and galvanized sheets that fall
under IS 15965 and IS 14246, that are either like or directly competitive articles to the
5 grades/types identified by the interested parties. Therefore, the Authority for the
purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by KG
Dongbu Steel.
ll) Dongkuk CM, Korea and Dongkuk Steel India Pvt Ltd
164. The interested parties have sought clarification whether exclusion of ‘Coated - Electro
Galvanised steel’ also extends to both ‘metallic coated electro-galvanised steel’ and
‘colour coated electro-galvanised steel’.
165. The Authority understands that Metallic Coated Electrogalvanized Steel would be
covered within the exclusion in the notice of initiation, namely, “Coated – electro
galvanized steel’. The Authority also understands the colour coated electro galvanized
steel is nothing but colour coated steel. Accordingly, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Dongkuk with
respect to colour coated electrogalvanized steel.
mm) Metal and Stainless-Steel Merchants Association
166. The interested party has requested exclusion of Copper-plated steel, Cobalt-plated steel,
Silver-plated steel, Armor-wear-resistant steel, Die steel, Aluminized steel, Nickel plated steel, Plastic mould steel and power tool steel.
167. As stated above, the exclusion of copper plated, cobalt plated, silver plated, aluminium
coated and nickel coated steel from the scope of the PUC has been agreed. With respect
to the remaining grades/types, the interested party has not specified the precise grade
or the end use of the grade of steel for which it has sought exclusion. The interested
party has also not provided the grounds for which it seeks exclusion of the said grades.
The Authority is unable to consider such an unsubstantiated request.
nn) NLMK Clabecq and NLMK India Service Center Private Limited
168. The interested parties have sought exclusion of proprietary grades of high-yield and
abrasion-resistant steel plates imported from Italy on the grounds that the plates are
priced higher than the plates supplied by the domestic industry.
169. The Authority notes that the grades/types for which the interested parties have sought
exclusion are proprietary name of a grade/type produced by a company. Proprietary
names are company specific and cannot be used by other producers. The Authority notes
that company-specific product exclusions cannot be granted. Additionally, the
interested parties have neither provided the corresponding Indian Standard, nor the
specific usage based on which the Authority can evaluate the exclusion request.
170. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
171. The domestic industry has provided various invoices covering abrasion-resistant and
high-yield plate mill plates, that are directly competitive with the grades for which
NLMK has sought exclusion. Therefore, no grounds exist to consider NLMK’s
exclusion request.
oo) Stitch Overseas Private Limited
172. Stitch has requested exclusion for Galvalume Sheets/Coil of Standard specification -
ASTM A 792 DS/DQ | YS250 | IS 15961:2012 citing concerns related to customer
approval and quality. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products
cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. Additionally,
the lack of customer approval is also not a valid ground for seeking exclusion of a
product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as the concerned
customer would have the ability to deny approval of the domestic industry’s products
thereby ensuring that such products do not attract trade remedy measures.
173. The domestic industry has provided several invoices of sales of Galvalume sheets under
IS 15961. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to
accept the exclusion request filed by Stitch Overseas.
pp) Hella India Automotive Pvt Limited
174. The interested party has requested exclusion of ‘Metallic Coated Steel coils and sheets,
whether or not profiled, including Galvanneal, Coated with Zinc or Aluminium-Zinc or
Zinc-Aluminium Magnesium’ having usage in HORN products in Automative sector.
The party requests this exclusion as domestic industry faces technical constraints in
achieving the required properties.
175. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis. The Authority notes that differences in quality of the products cannot
be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC. The Authority
determines that at the stage of the Preliminary Findings, it would be sufficient to
examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive articles”.
176. The Authority notes that domestic industry has provided several invoices for sales of
Zinc-Aluminum-Magnesium Coated that have common and overlapping usage with the
products for which interested party has sought an exclusion. These products are
therefore directly competitive. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Hella India Automotive Pvt
Limited.
qq) Polyhose Sato-Shoji Metal Works Private Limited
177. The interested party has requested exclusion of Wear Resistant Steel being imported
from JFE Steel Corporation, Japan citing quality, supply and customer certification
concerns. Given that the Authority has already evaluated the exclusion request of JFE
above, there is no necessity to re-examine the same request filed by Polyhose Sato.
rr) NTECK Automative Pvt Ltd
178. NTECK Automative Pvt Ltd has requested exclusion for S35C grade with sheet
thickness 5.90 mm and 6.00 mm, without providing any reasons for its request. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical specifications.
Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil
the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The
applicant has provided invoices demonstrating sales of articles that are directly
competitive with the S35C grade for which NTECK has sought exclusion. Therefore,
the Authority, for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion
request filed by NTECK.
ss) Toyota Boshoku Device India Private Limited
179. Interested party requested exclusion of 3 grade/types of high tensile steel stating that
the domestic producers are unable to produce steel with the specific tolerances. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical specifications.
The domestic industry has provided multiple invoices demonstrating sales of coils with
varying tensile strength. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of preliminary
findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Toyota pertaining to grades
used in automotive application.
tt) Riddhi Siddhi Special Steel Pvt Ltd.
180. The interested party has requested exclusion for tool and die steel covered under IS
3748, which is used in sectors like die manufacturing, aerospace, engineering,
automotive, defence etc. on ground of limited production and supply capability of
Indian producers.
181. The interested party has not precisely identified the precise grades for which it seeks
exclusion. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the
Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with
identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the
applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis. The domestic industry has provided several invoices
covering wear-resistant steel that have overlapping applications with the steel for which
Riddhi Siddhi has sought an exclusion. Therefore, the Authority for the purpose of
preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Riddhi Siddhi
Special Steel Pvt Ltd.
uu) Sansera Engineering Private Limited
182. The interested party has requested 8 grades/types of PUC citing unavailability of
proprietary grade in India and customer mandated source having usage in specialized
forging and machining components. The Authority notes that the grades for which
Sansera has sought exclusion falls under the HS 7228, which is already out of the scope
of the investigation. Therefore, there is no requirement to consider Sansera’s exclusion
request.
vv) Schaffler India Limited
183. The interested party has requested exclusion of 4 grades/types of PUC having usage in
Automotive industry citing quality and supply concerns. The Authority notes that
differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from
the scope of the PUC. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant
must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
184. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
185. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has provided several invoices
demonstrating the supply of grades that have overlapping application with the 4
grades/types for which Schaeffler has sought an exclusion. Additionally, the domestic
industry has provided several invoices pertaining sales to automotive sector. It may be
stated that the domestic industry supplies products that have overlapping usage with the
products imported for automotive application. Therefore, the Authority is unable to
accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
ww) Tarun International Limited
186. The interested party has requested exclusion for 7 grades/types of High Carbon Hot
Rolled Coils citing quality and supply concerns. The Authority is of the view that
differences in quality of the products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from
the scope of the PUC. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant
must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
187. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to
examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical
specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must
be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a
standalone basis.
188. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has provided several invoices pertaining
to sales to different sectors. It may be stated that the domestic industry supplies products
that have overlapping usage with the grades for which exclusion has been sought.
Therefore, the Authority is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
xx) TT Steel Services India Pvt. Ltd.
189. TT Steel Services India Pvt. Ltd. requested for the exclusion of “Cold Rolled high
tensile steel, Hot Rolled high tensile & Hot Dip Galvanised Steel”. TT Steel has not
provided the precise specification of the product for which it seeks exclusion. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical specifications.
Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil
the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The
Authority notes that specific product characteristics are customer driven and articles of
varying tensile strength are directly competitive with each other. The applicant has
produced various invoices of steel with diverse tensile strength. Further, the domestic
industry has provided several invoices for galvanised steel. Therefore, the Authority for
the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by
HSC pertaining to grades used in automotive application.
yy) TATA Steel Downstream Products Ltd
190. TATA Steel Downstream Products Ltd. requested exclusion for Hot Rolled Steel Plates
(heat treated abrasion resistant steel plates) of grades 1E1839 and 1E4187. The
Authority notes that interested party did not provide any specific grade, product
identification, technical specifications or ground from exclusion. Therefore, the
Authority is unable to evaluate the exclusion request of Tata Steel Downstream
Products Ltd.
zz) Tube Investments of India Ltd (TII).
191. Tube Investments of India Ltd. has requested exclusion for 146+/- 0.5 mm X 9 +/- 0.35
mm thickness steel sheets of grade JSH590RN-P. The Authority notes that interested
party has not provided any technical specifications or grounds for exclusion. The
Authority notes that there is no requirement under the law for the Authority to examine
or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each grade with identical specifications.
Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that the applicant must be able to fulfil
the entire demand for the country and each individual user on a standalone basis. The
domestic industry has provided invoices demonstrating of sales to Tubes Investment
India Ltd. Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of preliminary findings is unable to
accept the exclusion request filed by TII.
aaa) Velmurugan Heavy Engg. Inds. Pvt. Ltd.
192. Velmurugan Heavy Engg. Inds. Pvt. Ltd. has requested exclusion for HR Plate Steel
(S355J2, NL, Z25, etc.). The Authority notes that interested party has not provided any
technical specifications or grounds for exclusion. The Authority has examined the
invoices provided by the domestic industry on a sample basis and is satisfied that the
domestic industry has supplied products that are like or directly competitive with the
said grades.
193. Interested party have also made requests for exclusion of products from the scope of
the PUC citing reasons of lack of quality in the domestically produced goods and the
lack of customer certification. The Authority notes that there is no requirement under
the law for the Authority to examine or the applicant to prove that it manufactures each
grade with identical specifications. Similarly, there is no requirement under the law that
the applicant must be able to fulfil the entire demand for the country and each individual
user on a standalone basis. The Authority further notes that differences in quality of the
products cannot be a ground for exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC.
Furthermore, the lack of customer certification is also not a valid ground for seeking
exclusion of a product from the scope of the PUC since this is susceptible to misuse as
the concerned customer would have the ability to deny certification of the domestic
industry’s products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract trade remedy
measures. The domestic industry has produced several invoices covering a wide range
of HR Plates that are directly competitive with the grades for which Velmurugan has
sought exclusion. Therefore, the Authority, for the purpose of preliminary findings is
unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Velmurugan.
bbb) All India Metal
194. All India metal has requested for the exclusion of Aluminium Coated and Aluminium
Silicon coated steel. The exclusion of these grades of steel has been accepted.
ccc) Mahindra Defence Systems Limited
195. Mahindra Defence has sought exclusion of grades of steel supplied by SSAB. Since the
Authority has evaluated the exclusion request filed by SSAB above, there is no
necessity to re-examine the same request filed by Mahindra Defence Systems.
Conclusion
196. In view of the above observations, the Authority determines the scope of the PUC is as
follows:
The product under consideration for the present investigation is “Non Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products”, (“PUC”), namely (a) Hot Rolled
(“HR”) coils, sheets and plates, (b) HR Plate Mill Plates (“PMP”), (c)
Cold Rolled (“CR”) coils and sheets, (d) Metallic Coated Steel coils and
sheets, whether or not profiled, including Galvanneal, Coated with Zinc
or Aluminium-Zinc or Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium (”Coated”), and (e)
Colour Coated coils and sheets, whether or not profiled (“CC”). The
PUC is classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975,
under tariff heading 7208, 7209, 7210, 7211, 7212, 7225 and 7226. The
tariff headings are indicative only and not binding on the scope of the
product under consideration.
The following products are excluded from the scope of the PUC:
a) Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel (CRGO)
b) Cold Rolled Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (CRNO) coils and sheets
c) Coated - Electro Galvanized Steel
d) Tinplate
e) Stainless steel
f) Nickel Coated / Nickel Plated Cold Rolled Steel;
g) Rubber Coated Steel;
h) Electro Galvanised (EG) – Zinc Nickel Coated Steel;
i) Bi-Metal Steel / Bi-Metal Sandwich Steel;
j) Brass Coated Steel Wire (wire is part of long steel products, which are
not even covered in the notice of initiation);
k) CRUTONITE;
l) INCONEL;
m) Stainless Steel Items (which are not even covered in the notice of
initiation);
n) Aluminium Coated Steel;
o) Aluminium Silicon Coated / Hot Dipped Aluminised Silicon Coated
Steel;
p) Hot Rolled Clad Steel Plate;
q) Nickel Plated Steel / Nickel Plated Strip;
r) Copper Plated Steel;
s) Laminated Electro Galvanized (EGI);
t) Cobalt Plated Steel;
u) Silver Plated Steel;
v) Titanium Clad Plates;
197. There are no known differences between the imported goods and the goods produced
by the applicant companies. The imported goods and the goods produced by the
applicant companies are comparable in terms of physical characteristics, manufacturing
process, functions and uses, product specifications, distribution and marketing, and
tariff classifications. The goods produced by the domestic industry are also technically
and commercially substitutable with the imported products. The Authority holds that
the products manufactured by the applicant companies and the imported products are
“like or directly competitive articles”.
198. The Authority clarifies that the scope of the PUC defined in the earlier paragraph is for
the purpose of these preliminary findings. Interested parties may file comments on the
scope of the PUC as defined in the preliminary findings. The Authority will consider
the submissions filed by the interested parties regarding the scope of the PUC in its final
findings. Should any other product be excluded from the scope of the PUC in the final
findings, the Authority notes that Rule 15 of the Safeguard Rules entitles importers to
a refund on the provisional duty imposed and collected on such articles.
D. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
199. Clause (b) of sub-section (11) of Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 defines
Domestic Industry (hereinafter also referred to as the "DI"), as follows:
‘(b)“Domestic industry” means the producers -
i. as a whole of the like article or a directly competitive article
in India; or
ii. whose collective output of the like article or a directly
competitive article in India constitutes a major share of the
total production of the said article in India.’
200. The petition has been filed by ISA on behalf of seven domestic producers, namely a)
AMNS Khopoli Limited; b) ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited; c) Jindal Steel
and Power Limited; d) JSW Steel Coated Products Limited; e) JSW Steel Limited; f)
Bhushan Steel & Power Limited; and g) Steel Authority of India Limited. In addition,
there are several other producers in India producing all the five categories of the PUC
or one or more of the five categories of the PUC. Petitioners presented the Annual
Statistics published by the Joint Plant Committee (JPC) of the Ministry of Steel,
Government of India for information relating to (a) total number of units in India with
State-wise break-down that are involved in the production of various categories of PUC,
(b) total annual production and (c) total demand in India. The Authority observes that
the JPC data does not provide data for HR Coils and sheets, and HR Plate Mill Plates
separately. It provides information for four groups namely (a) HR Flat products that
include both HR Coils and Sheets, and HR Plate Mill Plates, (b) CR Coils and Sheets,
(c) Metallic Coated Steel, and (d) Colour Coated Steel. Therefore, information has been
grouped into four categories for determining the standing of the domestic industry, and
for considering total demand and market share. For the purposes of the preliminary
findings, the Authority considers the data reasonable and reliable.
201. Based on the JPC Annual Statistics, the seven petitioner companies collectively account
for ***% of total production in the case of HR Flat products, ***% in the case of CR
Coils and Sheets, ***% in the case of Metallic coated steel, and ***% in the case of
Colour coated steel as may be seen from the tables below.
Hot Rolled Flat Products
Particulars Units FY
2021-22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
1 Oct 23 to
30 Sep 24
Production- Domestic
Industry
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 109 117 115
Production- Other
Producers
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 102 113 117
Total Domestic
Production (as per JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 106 116 116
Share of the DI in Total
Domestic Production
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 102 100
CR coils and sheets
Particulars Units FY
2021-22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
1 Oct 23
to 30 Sep
24
Production- Domestic
Industry
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 111 114
Production- Other
Producers
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 87 106 103
Total Domestic
Production (as per JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 95 109 109
Share of the DI in Total
Domestic Production
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 102 106
Metallic Coated Steel
Particulars Units FY
2021-22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
1 Oct 23 to
30 Sep 24
Production- Domestic
Industry
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 116 119
Production- Other
Producers
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 128 119
Total Domestic
Production (as per JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 119 119
Share of the DI in Total
Domestic Production
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 97 100
Colour Coated Steel
Particulars Units FY
2021-22
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-
24
POI
1 Oct 23 to
30 Sep 24
Production- Domestic
Industry
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 117 113
Production- Other
Producers
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 92 133 148
Total Domestic
Production (as per JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 121 121
Share of the DI in Total
Domestic Production
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 97 94
PUC as a whole
Particulars Units FY
2021-22
FY
2022-23
FY
2023-24
POI
1 Oct
23 to
30 Sep
24
Production- Domestic Industry '000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100% 93% 86% 87%
Production- Other Producers '000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100% 103% 89% 88%
Total Domestic Production (as per JPC
AS)
'000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100% 97% 87% 87%
Share of the DI in Total Domestic
Production %
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100% 95% 98% 98%
202. One of the applicant companies, namely AMNS India Ltd. had imported *** MT
of the PUC, constituting ***% of their total production of the PUC during the POI.
The Authority notes that the imported volumes have been captively used and that
the entity continues to be a major domestic producer of the PUC.
203. For the PUC as a whole, the seven petitioner companies collectively account for ***%
of the total production in India during the POI. Accordingly, the Authority holds that
the petition has been filed by or on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning
of Section 8B (11) (b) (ii) of the Act.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
204. The domestic industry has provided some information in its application on confidential
basis and has requested that it be treated as confidential. The domestic industry has also
provided a non-confidential version (NCV) of its application, as required under the
Rules. Further, the domestic industry has submitted reasons justifying their claim of
confidentiality of this information.
205. The information provided by the interested parties on confidential basis was examined
with regard to sufficiency of the confidentiality claim. On being satisfied, the
confidentiality claims have been accepted, wherever warranted and such information
has been considered confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties.
F. INCREASE IN IMPORTS
206. Rule 2 (c) of the Rules state that ‘increased quantity’ includes increase in imports
whether in absolute terms or relative to domestic production. The use of the word ‘or’
indicates that increase either in absolute terms or relative to domestic production is
sufficient under the rules. Still, the Authority has examined the increase in imports both
in absolute terms and relative to domestic production. In addition, increase in imports
relative demand in India has also been examined. The analysis of volume of imports of
the PUC into India is performed for the PUC as a whole, and for each of the five product
categories thereof individually. Wherever necessary, the Authority made appropriate
adjustments to the import data to account for the products/grades that have been
excluded for the purposes of the preliminary findings.
Absolute Terms
207. First, analysis was carried out for the POI (Oct- 23 to Sep-24, and the three preceding
FYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. In this analysis, first six months of the POI i.e.
from Oct-23 to Mar-24 overlapped the FY 2023-24. Despite the overlap, the analysis
helps understand the increase in imports during the most recent 12 months for which
data is available. Secondly, data for the POI was compared to the corresponding 12
months of the previous years i.e. on an Oct – Sep basis. Thirdly, data for the last six
months of the POI i.e. April 24 to Oct-24 was compared to the corresponding six months
of the previous years.
Comparison I - POI data with the 3 preceding FYs
208. When data for the POI is compared to the three preceding FYs, imports of the PUC as
a whole increased from 2.293 million MT (MMT) during 2021-22 to 6.612 MMT
during the POI. The cumulative increase was 4.319 MMT or by 188%. On category by-category comparison, imports of HR Coils and sheets increased by 2.978 MMT
(299%) during POI as compared to FY 2021-22, HR Plate Mill Plates by 0.590 MMT
(195%), CR Coils and sheets by 0.068 MMT (15%), Metallic coated steel by 0.422
MMT (111%), and Colour coated steel by 0.262 MMT (185%) as shown in the table
below.
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Product 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
HR Coils and Sheets 995 1,926 3,081 3,973
HR Plate Mill Plates 302 312 619 892
CR Coils and Sheets 473 578 515 541
Metallic Coated
Steel
381 518 762 803
Colour Coated Steel 142 190 366 404
Total 2,293 3,524 5,344 6,612
Trend
HR Coils and Sheets 100 194 310 399
HR Plate Mill Plates 100 103 205 295
CR Coils and Sheets 100 122 109 115
Metallic Coated
Steel 100 136 200 211
Colour Coated Steel 100 134 259 285
Total 100 154 233 288
209. Further, imports of HR Coils and sheets, HR Plate Mill Plates, Metallic Coated Steel
and Colour Coated Steel increased year after year. In the case of CR Coils and sheets
increased from 0.473 MMT during FY 2021-22 to 0.578 MMT during FY 2022-23. It
declined to 0.515 MMT during FY 2023-24 but increased again to 0.541 MMT during
the POI. Despite a decline during 2023-24, imports of CR Coils and sheets increased
by 0.068 MMT during POI as compared to the base year 2021-22.
210. On a year-to-year comparison, import volumes during 2022-23 increased by 1.231
MMT over 2021-22, during 2023-24 increased by 1.820 MMT over 2022-23 and
imports during the POI increased by 1.521 MMT over 2023-24 as shown in the table
below.
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Product 2021-22 Increase
during
2022-23
Increase
during
2023-24
Increase
during
POI
HR Coils and Sheets - 930 1,156 892
HR Plate Mill Plates - 10 307 272
CR Coils and Sheets - 106 -63 278
Metallic Coated Steel - 137 244 41
Colour Coated Steel - 48 176 38
Total - 1,231 1,820 1,521
211. On a year-to-year comparison, CR coils and sheets declined marginally by 0.063 MMT
during 2023-24 over 2022-23 but increased significantly during the POI over 2023-24.
Imports of all the other four categories of PUC increased significantly year after year.
Comparison II – 12 months of Oct-Sep basis
212. When import data is compared on 12 months period of Oct-Sep basis, imports of the
PUC as a whole increased by 4.043 MMT or by 157% during Oct-23 to Sep-24
compared to the base year. Of the five categories of PUC, four categories (except CR
Coils and sheets) recorded a consistent increase year-after-year. Import of CR coils and
sheets declined marginally by 0.010 MMT during the POI as compared to the previous
12 months period. Despite such a decline, imports of CR coils and sheets during the
latest 12 months period were 0.081 MMT (18%) higher compared to the base period as
shown in the table below:
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Product Oct-20 to
Sep-21
Oct-21 to Sep
22
Oct-22 to
Sep-23
Oct-23 to
Sep- 24
Actual
HR Coils and Sheets 1,167 1,158 2,309 3,973
HR Plate Mill Plates 375 316 397 892
CR Coils and Sheets 460 502 551 541
Metallic Coated
Steel
369 427 608 803
Colour Coated Steel 198 163 255 404
Total 2,570 2,566 4,119 6,612
Trend
HR Coils and Sheets 100 99 198 340
HR Plate Mill Plates 100 84 106 238
CR Coils and Sheets 100 109 120 118
Metallic Coated
Steel 100 116 165 218
Colour Coated Steel 100 82 129 204
Total 100 100 160 257
Comparison III – Last six months of POI compared corresponding preceding
periods
213. When import volume during the last six months of the POI was compared to the
corresponding six months of the previous years, imports of PUC as a whole increased
from 1.116 MMT during Apr-Sep 2021 to 3.253 MMT during Apr-Sep 2024 recording
an increase of 2.137 MMT (191%) during the injury analysis period. Each of the five
categories of the PUC also recorded significant increase during in import volumes.
214. The increase in imports during the last six months of the POI (Apr-Sep 2024) compared
to the corresponding six months of the immediately preceding year (Apr-Sep2023) was
113%. The increase was 24% during the first six months of FY 2022 over FY 2021 and
54% during FY 2023 over FY 2022. Thus, the increase in imports was sharp during the
last six months.
Relative terms
215. For this purpose, both demand and production (net of captive consumption) as per JPC’s
Annual Statistics were considered.
216. PUC as a whole: The volume of Imports relative to production increased from ***%
during FY 2021-22 to ***% during the POI, an increase of ***%. During the same
period, imports relative to demand in India increased from ***% to ***% as shown in
the table below.
Particulars Units FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 POI
Imports '000 MT 2,293 3,524 5,344 6,612
Trend 100 154 233 288
Domestic Sales of
DI
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 122 132 133
Total Demand (JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 115 129 139
DI Production
(Excluding Captive
Consumption)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 119 117
Imports relative to
… Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 134 180 208
… Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 142 196 247
Market Share of DI % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 106 102 95
217. HR Flat products: The volume of imports relative to production increased from ***%
during FY 2021-22 to ***% during POI. During the same period, imports relative to
demand increased from ***% to ***%.
Particulars Units FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 POI
Imports '000 MT 1,297 2,238 3,701 4,864
Trend 100 172 285 375
Domestic Sales of DI '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 122 134 132
Total Demand (JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 129 147 154
DI Production
(Excluding Captive
Consumption)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 121 118
Imports relative to
… Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 134 194 244
… Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 157 236 318
Market Share of DI % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 94 91 85
218. CR Coils and sheets: The imports relative to production increased from ***% during
FY 2021-22 to ***% during the POI. During the same period, imports relative to
demand increased from ***% to ***%.
Particulars Units FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 POI
Imports '000 MT 473 578 515 541
Trend 100 122 109 115
Domestic Sales of
DI
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 116 126 127
Total Demand (JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 85 90 104
DI Production
(Excluding Captive
Consumption)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 110 111
Imports relative to
… Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 143 120 110
… Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 122 99 104
Market Share of DI % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 135 139 122
219. Metallic Coated Steel: Imports relative to production increased from ***% during FY
2021-22 to ***% during the POI. During the same period, imports relative to demand
increased from ***% to ***%.
Particulars Units FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 POI
Imports '000 MT 381 518 762 803
Trend 100 136 200 211
Domestic Sales of
DI
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 130 141
156
Total Demand (JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 113 132 146
DI Production
(Excluding Captive
Consumption)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 116 119
Imports relative to
… Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 121 152 144
… Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 129 173 177
Market Share of DI % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 115 107 107
220. Colour Coated Steel: The volume of imports relative to production increased from
***% during FY 2021-22 to ***% during the POI. During the same period, volume of
imports relative to demand increased from ***% to ***% as shown in the table below.
Particulars Units FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 POI
Imports '000 MT 142 190 366 404
Trend 100 134 259 285
Domestic Sales of
DI
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 117 118 117
Total Demand (JPC
AS)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 113 127 127
DI Production
(Excluding Captive
Consumption)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 117 113
Imports relative to
… Demand % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 118 204 225
… Production % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 124 220 252
Market Share of DI % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 93 92
221. The above analysis indicates that the volume of imports increased both in absolute
terms, and relative to production and demand. The increase in import volumes by 4.319
MMT or by 188% during the injury analysis period is considered to be significant,
sudden and sharp. An increase of 1.521 MMT during the POI compared to the
immediately preceding FY indicates that it was recent, sudden and sharp. Comparison
of imports of the PUC across different time buckets (which are adequately long and
recent) in absolute numbers or relative imports (as a share of demand and production)
unequivocally show a surge of imports. In view of the above, the Authority holds that
the increase in the volume of imports of the PUC as a whole, and the five categories of
PUC individually, has been recent, sudden, sharp and significant.
G. UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS
222. The Act and the Rules do not refer to the term “unforeseen developments”. However,
the Agreement on Safeguards read with Article XIX:1(a) of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 is interpreted by Appellate Body3
to mean that an
investigating authority is to assess ‘if as a result of unforeseen developments and of the
effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including
tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that contracting
party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to
cause serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of like or directly
competitive products”. The Appellate Body has explained that the ordinary meaning of
the phrase ‘as a result of unforeseen developments’ requires that developments which
led to a product being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions
as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic producers must have been
3 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear (EC) paras. 78-98
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/121ABR.pdf&Open=True ; Appellate
Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS/98
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/98ABR.pdf&Open=True paras. 76-92.
“unexpected4
. Further, the Panel and Appellate Body in US-Steel Safeguards and
Korea-Dairy have observed that unforeseen developments are developments that were
not foreseen or expected at the time a Member incurred an obligation under GATT5
. It
has also been held that the term ‘Unforeseen developments’ denotes not a separate
"condition" for the imposition of safeguard measures, but a certain set of circumstances
to be demonstrated as a matter of fact6
. The Panel in US-Steel Safeguards has also
observed that Article XIX does not preclude consideration of the confluence of multiple
developments as "unforeseen developments"……; that the confluence of developments
can form the basis of "unforeseen developments" for the purposes of Article XIX of
GATT 1994. It is for each Member to demonstrate that a confluence of circumstances
that it considers were unforeseen at the time it concluded its tariff negotiations resulted
in increased imports causing serious injury7
. Panels and Appellate Body have
consistently held that there must be a logical connection between unforeseen
developments and the increase in imports. The Appellate Body has observed that
‘Investigating authorities must demonstrate the existence of unforeseen development as
a matter of fact and a logical connection between the developments and the increase in
imports causing injury to the domestic producers’
8
.
223. In light of the above understanding, the Authority examines whether the facts on record
in this case to determine whether the imports have surged as a result of unforeseen
developments within the meaning of Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1947. The facts on
record and their evaluation by the Authority is as follows:
224. The domestic industry has claimed that the volume of imports increased as a result of
certain unforeseen developments, namely, (a) multiple trade protection measures
against steel products by various WTO Member countries, (b) excess capacity and
slowing demand in China, Japan, Korea and ASEAN countries, and (c) changes in
ASEAN steel sector. It is necessary to determine whether the said developments are
unforeseen and whether the increase in imports is attributable to these unforeseen
developments.
a. Multiple trade protection measures
225. The current wave of trade protection measures against steel products was started by the
United States, under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act 1962 concluded that
steel articles were being imported into the United States in such quantities and under
such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States,
and imposed a 25% additional duty on all imports of steel products (Chapter 72 and 73)
with effect from 23 March 2018. Though certain relaxations were given to certain
countries, the 25% additional duty continues to be in force even today. In addition to
the above, the United States has also introduced Section 301 tariffs on various goods
originating from China including Chinese Steel at 25% from August 1, 2024.
226. In response to the imposition of Section 232 measures by USA on 23 March 2018,
several countries imposed protective measures, some of which are listed below:
4 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear (EC) para 91, 96, Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy para. 84,
89.
5 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, WT/DS98, para 89 and Panel Report, US-Steel Safeguard, para 10.41
6 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear (EC) para. 92, Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 85
7 Panel Report, US-Steel Safeguard para. 10.99
8 Appellate Body Report, Korea-Dairy, paras. 81-82
i On 15 May 2018, GCC imposed safeguard measures in the
form of a specific rate of duty on products falling under HSN
Heading 7210. The measure expired on 14 May 2021.
ii On 18 July 2018, EU imposed safeguard measures in the
form of TRQ with over the quota tariff of 25% on all
products falling under HSN headings 7208, 7209, 7210,
7211, 7212, 7225 and 7226. The measure still continues.
iii On 31 Dec 2018, Morocco imposed Safeguard measures on
in the form of a TRQ with an over the quota tariff of 16% on
products falling under HSN headings 7209, 7210, 7211,
7212, 7225, and 7226. The measures expired recently on 31
Dec 2024. On 19 June 2020, Morocco imposed safeguard
duty of 25% (no quota) on certain steel products. The
measure still continues.
iv GCC imposed a safeguard measure under HSN heading
7210 on 15 May 2018 which expired on 14 May 2021.
v The Board of Eurasian Economic Commission imposed a
safeguard measure in form of quota under HSN headings
7208, 7211, 7225, 7226 on 1 December 2019, which was in
force for a year.
vi Canada imposed a safeguard measure under HSN heading
7306, 7305, 7304, 7227, 7226, 7225, 7223, 7214, 7213,
7212, 7210, 7211, 7208, 7208, 7210, 7211, 7212, 7213,
7214, 7223, 7225, 7226, 7227, 7304, 7305, 7306, 7305,
7208, 7210, 7211, 7212, 7213, 7214, 7223, 7225, 7226,
7227, 7304, 7305, 7306, 7210, 7208, 7306, 7304, 7227,
7226, 7225, 7223, 7214, 7213, 7212, 7211 in form of tariff
rate quota on May 13, 2019. The measure expired in May
2021.
vii UK imposed safeguard measure in form of tariff rate quota
under the HSN headings 720853, 720853, 720852, 720852,
720840, 720839, 720838, 720837, 720836, 720827, 720826,
720825, 722691, 720810, 720854, 721113, 721114, 721119,
721260, 722519, 722530, 722530, 722530, 722540, 722540,
722619, 722691, 722691, 720854, 720810, 720825, 720826,
720827, 720836, 720837, 720838, 720839, 720840, 720852,
720852, 720853, 722691, 721113, 721114, 721119,
721260, 722519, 722530, 722530, 722530, 722540, 722540,
722619, 722691, 722691. The measure still continues.
227. In addition to the safeguard measures, several WTO Members imposed Antidumping
or countervailing duties on imports of steel products into their territories. According to
an OECD Report, 129 trade remedy measures were adopted by countries such as the
EU, Canada, the UK and others against steel products. The trend of trade protection
measures displays a progressively growing tendency on the part of WTO Members to
initiate trade remedy measures against steel in response to influx of imports. An average
of 77 steel-related investigations were initiated between 2011-2013, which increased to
117 during 2015-169
; and 129 between 2019-23. Furthermore, in the period January to
September 2024, as many as 67 new anti-dumping investigations have been initiated
globally, which represents the highest number of trade remedy actions observed since
the excess capacity crisis of 2015-1610. Over 70% of the number of investigations
against steel products between 2019-2311
were targeted against steel flat products.
228. The Authority holds that the surges witnessed in trade remedy actions during 2019 -
2024 in major global markets despite the high number of trade protection measures on
steel existing prior to 2019 are unforeseen and that the unprecedented number of such
measures is by itself unforeseen.
b. Excess capacity and slowing demand
229. According to an OECD report on ‘latest developments in steelmaking capacity’12
,
global steelmaking capacity posted four consecutive years of growth in the period 2019-
2022. In 2022 alone, global steelmaking capacity increased by 32.1 MMT to 2459.1
MMT, the highest global capacity figure in history. The increases seen in global
capacity in 2022 was larger than the capacity levels of some large steel-producing
economies (for example Vietnam, with a capacity of 26 MMT in 2022).
230. Further, there is a gap between global capacity and crude steel production indicating
significant excess capacity globally. The excess capacity surged to 627.7 MMT in 2022
from 512.6 MMT in 2021. Excess steelmaking capacity data relates to crude
steelmaking capacity. The producers must convert crude steel into saleable steel, which
would then be converted into longs or flat steel products. While the share of excess
capacity specific to longs or flats may not be equal, excess crude steelmaking capacity
is representative of the unutilised significant assets adding to fixed costs and seriously
affecting the steel producers around the globe. Such an increase in excess capacity
poses grave risks for the long-term health and viability of the steel industry.
231. The steel consumption in Japan is significantly less compared to its steel capacity and
the Japanese steel industry is highly export oriented. Crude steel capacity and
consumption of steel in Japan are as follows:
Particulars 2021 2022 2023
Crude Steel
Capacity
122.4 122.4 117.8
Crude Steel
Consumption
63.6 60.8 58.7
Excess Capacity
Compared to
Consumption
58.8 61.6 59.1
Excess Capacity as
a percentage of
consumption
92% 101% 101%
(Source: World Steel Association)
232. Similarly, steel capacity in South Korea is significantly higher than its steel
consumption, and the South Korean steel industry is highly export oriented as shown
below:
Particulars 2021 2022 2023
Crude Steel
Capacity
81.6 81.6 81.6
Crude Steel
Consumption
58.4 53.4 54.6
Excess Capacity
Compared to
Consumption
23.2 28.2 27
Excess Capacity as
a percentage of
consumption
40% 53% 49%
(Source: World Steel Association)
c. In 2020, China introduced the “Three Red Lines” policy to control the excessive
borrowing of property developers. This policy set strict limits on debt ratios, which
many developers failed to meet, leading to restricted borrowing and financial
strain, including defaults on debt repayments.13 As a result, the real estate sector
witnessed a significant decline in demand resulting in stalling or disruption of
numerous construction projects. Consequently, China’s real-estate investments
have slid down 2021 onwards and declined by 10.2% during January to July
2024.This led to a decline in the domestic steel consumption of long products in
China. China’s steel industry tried multiple strategies to mitigate the fall in
domestic steel demand from the construction sector. For one, mills shifted
production from longs to flats. As may be seen from the graph below, flat products
production share increased from 50% to 59%, while long products went down
correspondingly.
13 UBS, “China’s Three Red Lines: Opportunities in China real estate”,
https://www.ubs.com/global/en/assetmanagement/insights/thematic-viewpoints/apac-and emerging/articles/china-three-red-lines.html
233. One of the additional reasons for the recalibration has also been the exportability of flat
products as opposed to long products, to overseas markets. This led to an increase in
exports of flat products from China PR.
234. The Authority holds the above developments taking into account the volume of excess
capacity as unforeseen. Similarly, the significant shift in the volume of production from
long products to flat products that occurred in China is also unforeseen.
d. Changes in ASEAN region Steel sector
235. In 2019, it was reported that almost half of the existing overseas capacity from Chinese
Mills were located in ASEAN and that various Chinese mills are setting up capacities
in the ASEAN region.14 ASEAN region is expected to significantly increase crude steel
production capacity The ongoing excess capacity itself is at a risk of significant
escalation. The increase in overcapacity is also directly responsible for the increase in
imports of steel flat products into India, since overcapacity prompts producers to offload
excess capacity through exports in third-country markets.
236. Despite declining steel demand, and a weak outlook, capacity expansion continues at a
robust pace. For instance, Vietnam, a net steel export destination for Indian steel
industry in the past, is now a net steel exporter to India. New capacities being added in
ASEAN countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand,
Malaysia, Philippines are mainland Chinese investments.
237. The Authority has carefully perused the above changes in the Steel sector. It notes that
the changes in the ASEAN steel sector considering the extent of such changes appear
to be unforeseen. At the time of undertaking obligations under the GATT, India could
14 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp content/uploads/2020/03/ISEAS_Perspective_2020_50.pdf.
not have expected that in China, a policy such as the ‘Three Red Lines’ would affect
the construction sector and lead to a fall in the domestic consumption of steel long
products, such that the production of flat products would rise. Neither could India have
foreseen that favorable export market conditions could arise for steel flat products in
overseas markets, and that the capacity of steel production could increase at a pace as
to substantially exceed the level of internal consumption, thus leading to excess
capacities despite weakening demand. Nor could India expect that this would, in turn,
lead to vehement trade protection measures in light of the overall steel industry
situation. Furthermore, India could also not have expected at the time of negotiating
concessions that China’s excess capacities and exports would spill over to countries in
the ASEAN, along with Korea and Japan - which would also develop massive excess
capacities over their consumption levels, and become heavily export-oriented. All the
afore mentioned developments and circumstances account for more than a mere change
in capacity, production or changes in market positioning. The Authority thus is of the
view that the cumulative effect of the confluence of the developments narrated above
was clearly unforeseen.
e. Logical connection between the unforeseen developments and increase imports
238. The domestic industry claims that (a) the surge in imports of the article under
investigation follows the imposition of trade protection measures and the other
developments mentioned above; and (b) the increase in imports can be attributed to the
confluence of several unforeseen developments such as multiple trade protection
measures against steel, excess capacity and slowing demand in China, Japan, Korea and
ASEAN, and changes in ASEAN steel sector. This confluence of simultaneous
protectionism and export orientation has led to the flooding of the Indian market - the
only growing, large steel consuming market that has not imposed any protective
measures.
239. The Authority finds that imports of the product concerned (falling under HSN Tariff
Headings 7208, 7209, 7210, 7211,7212, 7225 and 7226) into the USA declined by 2.183
MMT in 2023 compared to 2021 as may be seen in the table below:
(Quantity in MTs)
County CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023
Cumulative
decline in
imports into
USA
Increase in
imports into
India
between
2021-2023
China 140,886 209,118 92,010 (48,876) 801,595
Japan 463,837 438,808 351,232 (112,605) 443,030
Korea,
RP
1,361,971 1,259,274 1,152,649 (209,322) 394,752
Viet
Nam
679,022 660,413 249,938 (429,084) 847,437
Others 8,131,981 8,102,976 7,062,825 (1,069,156) 35,619
Total 1,334,940 11,151,458 9,151,127 (2,183,813) 2,522,433
(source: Trade map database)
240. During the corresponding period, imports of the product concerned into India has
recorded a significant increase. For instance, Imports from Japan into USA declined by
112,605 MT during the period 2021-2023 whereas imports from Japan to India
increased by 443,030 MT. It appears that the decline in imports from Japan to USA
appears to be a significant cause of increase in imports into India from Japan. Similarly,
decline in imports into USA from China, Korea, Viet Nam, also appears to have
contributed to the increase in imports into India from such countries.
241. As a cumulative effect of the developments mentioned above, imports of PUC from
China PR increased by more than 5 times as shown in the table below:
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Particulars 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Cumulative
Increase
HR Coils and Sheets 55 137 573 790 735
HR Plate Mill Plates 31 85 293 416 385
CR Coils and Sheets 24 21 24 50 26
Metallic Coated
Steel
44 34 89 72 28
Colour Coated Steel 74 93 244 288 214
Total 228 370 1,223 1,616 1,388
242. Similarly, imports from Japan recorded a significant surge as shown in the table below:
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Particulars 2021-
22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Cumulative
Increase
HR Coils and
Sheets 73 306 593 1,121 1,048
HR Plate Mill
Plates 56 59 22 66 10
CR Coils and
Sheets 76 92 113 112 36
Metallic Coated
Steel 116 94 130 134 18
Colour Coated
Steel 7 7 7 9 2
Total 328 558 865 1,442 1,114
243. Imports from Korea RP also increased significantly as shown though there was a
marginal decline in the imports of CR Coils and sheets.
(Volume in ’000s of MTs)
Particulars 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI Cumulative
Increase
HR Coils and
Sheets 866 1052 1295 1353 487
HR Plate Mill
Plates 116 104 234 340 224
CR Coils and
Sheets 366 441 344 345 -21
Metallic Coated
Steel 198 284 385 432 234
Colour Coated
Steel 49 59 71 70 21
Total 1,595 1,940 2,329 2,539 945
244. The Authority is of the view that there exists sufficient temporal connection between
unforeseen developments and the surge in imports.
245. The Authority also notes that on 10 February 2025, the USA has announced that it
would apply 25% additional duty on steel products with effect from 12 March 2025
uniformly on all imports into the USA from all sources by revoking relaxations and
exemptions granted, if any, to various countries. The domestic industry has claimed that
consequent to the withdrawal of relaxations and exemptions, more imports are expected
to bounce off from those countries and India has become more vulnerable to increased
imports. However, it may be difficult to visualize the impact of this development at this
stage.
H. EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER GATT
246. In terms of Article XIX:1 (a) of GATT 1947 the increase in imports shall be ‘of the
effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including
tariff concessions”. Some guidance may be taken from the Panel or Appellate Body
reports on interpreting this text. Firstly, the Appellate Body in Korea-Dairy opined: “it
must be demonstrated, as a matter of fact, that the importing Member has incurred
obligations under the GATT 1994, including tariff concessions”.15
Secondly, in the
report of the Panel in India – Certain Measures On Imports Of Iron And Steel
Products16, it has been observed as follows:
“7.87. A WTO Member imposing a safeguard measure must demonstrate the existence
of unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations through reasoned
and adequate explanations contained in its published report. These explanations must
15 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 84; Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear (EC),
para. 91.
16 Panel Report, India – Certain Measures On Imports Of Iron And Steel Products, para 7.87, 7.89.
show that the identified unforeseen developments have resulted in increased imports
causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the relevant domestic industry, and
that one or more obligations under the GATT 1994 limit the importing Member's
ability to prevent or offset the effect resulting from such increased imports.
7.89. With respect to the effect of a GATT 1994 obligation, the competent authority's
published report must demonstrate that a WTO Member imposing a safeguard
measure is subject to an obligation (or obligations) under the GATT 1994 and explain
how that obligation constrains its ability to react to the import surge causing injury
to its domestic industry.”
247. As a matter of fact, India has granted tariff concessions pursuant to Article II of GATT
1947. In its schedule of concessions, India has bound the customs duty at 40% for the
product under investigation. In so far as the question relating to how the obligations
constrain India’s ability to react to the import surge causing injury to its domestic
industry, the following are relevant:
i. India is a developing country with legitimate development policy objectives. With
these objectives, India’s National Steel Policy announced in 2017 aspires to achieve
300 MT of steelmaking capacity by 2030. This would translate into additional
investment of Rs. 10 lakh Crore by 2030- 31. The policy seeks to increase
consumption of steel and major segments are infrastructure, automobiles and
housing. New Steel Policy seeks to increase per capita steel consumption to the
level of 160 Kgs by 2030 from the level of around 60 Kg.
ii. The above stated legitimate developmental policy objectives cannot be achieved if
increased imports cause serious injury to the domestic steel industry. Several
obligations undertaken by India under GATT 1947 and other WTO Agreements
have constrained India’s ability to react to import surge. The following Articles
under GATT 1947 may be cited as examples:
i Article I casts an obligation to grant most favoured nation treatment to
every WTO Member restricting India’s ability to apply differential rates
of customs duty on the imports from a WTO Member if import volume
from that country has significantly increased causing serious injury.
ii Article XI casts an obligation prohibiting the use of quotas, import or
export licenses, or other measures that restrict the quantity of imports or
exports and ensures that trade flows remain as unrestricted as possible.
iii Article XVI and the SCM Agreement cast obligations to not maintain
subsidies that are inconsistent with the principles enumerated therein.
248. The Authority notes the following with reference to these obligations. First, the
obligations mentioned above have increased the access to India’s steel market for the
exporters from other WTO Members. Second, in situations where unforeseen
circumstances or a confluence of such factors lead to a surge in imports into the
domestic market, these obligations severally as well as collectively limit India’s ability
to take specific and targeted measures against other members of the WTO responsible
for the increased imports.
249. Safeguard measures are intended to address such situations. Safeguard measures are
fair-trade measures, unlike Anti-Dumping or Countervailing Measures. They are taken
only for the purpose of supporting the domestic industry in times of increased,
unfavourable and unforeseen imports that cause or threaten to cause permanent damage
to the domestic industry from which it becomes highly difficult or even impossible to
recover.
250. In these instances, obligations within the WTO framework are suspended to protect
domestic industries which could prove to be highly competitive and efficient in the
future with the help of some interim interventions, and ultimately benefit global trade
by preserving industries that can compete at the global level.
251. While it is noted that the applied tariff on the product under consideration is
significantly less than the bound rate, the Authority holds that safeguard measure
provides an appropriate tool as an interim mechanism with concomitant discipline to
address the situation under investigation which a general purpose duty enhancement
might not be able to achieve as effectively.
252. In view of the above, the Authority holds that as a result of unforeseen developments
and of the effects of obligations incurred under GATT 1947, including tariff
concessions, the product under consideration is being imported into India in increased
quantities
I. SERIOUS INJURY AND/OR THREAT OF SERIOUS INJURY
253. Paragraph 1 of Annexure to the Safeguard Rules states that in the investigation to
determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious
injury to a domestic industry, the Director General shall evaluate all relevant factors of
an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry,
in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the article concerned in
absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased
imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization,
profits and losses, and employment. Accordingly, the injury parameters specified in the
rules are examined hereinbelow.
i Rate and amount of increase in imports in absolute and relative terms:
254. As already stated, (a) there was a significant increase in the volume of imports in
absolute and relative terms, (b) volume of imports increased at a significantly high rate
in absolute and percentage terms, and (c) the increase in import volume was recent,
sudden, sharp and significant.
ii Share of Domestic market taken by increased imports
255. As already stated, changes in the market share of imports are tabulated below:
Product UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
HR Steel Flat
Products
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 134 194 244
CR Coils and Sheets % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 143 120 110
Metallic Coated Steel % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 121 152 144
Colour Coated Steel % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 118 204 225
For the PUC as a
whole
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 134 180 208
256. The imports took away ***% of the share of domestic industry for the PUC as a whole
during the injury analysis period as shown in the table above. Market share of imports
increased by ***% for HR Steel flat products, by ***% for CR coils and sheets, ***%
for Metallic Coated Steel and ***% for colour coated steel during the same period.
iii Changes in level of sales
257. The sales volumes of the domestic industry for the product as a whole increased by
***% during injury analysis period. It increased by ***% during 2022-23, a further
***% during 2023-24 and ***% during the POI as may be seen from the table below.
'000s of MT
Particulars 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
HR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
HR Plate Mill Plates *** *** *** ***
CR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
Metallic Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
Colour Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
PUC as whole *** *** *** ***
Trend
HR Coils and Sheets 100 127 142 140
HR Plate Mill Plates 100 106 107 105
CR Coils and Sheets 100 116 126 127
Metallic Coated Steel 100 130 141 156
Colour Coated Steel 100 117 118 117
PUC as whole 100 122 132 133
258. In so far as the five categories are concerned, sales of HR Coils and sheets increased by
***%, HR Plate Mill Plates by ***%, CR coils and sheets by ***%, Metallic Coated
by ***% and colour coated by ***% during the POI compared to the base year.
However, there was a decline of ***% in HR Coils and Sheets, ***% in HR Plate Mill
Plates, ***% in Colour Coated Steel during the POI compared to 2023-24 .
iv Changes in capacity, production and capacity utilisation
259. PUC as a whole: The capacity of the domestic industry for the PUC as a whole increased
from *** MMT during FY 2021-22 to *** MMT during the POI, recording an increase
of ***MMT. During the same period, production increased by *** MMT, and capacity
utilization came down by ***%. While production increased during the two financial
years preceding the POI, production declined during the POI. The production was
***MMT during 2023-24, and it declined to ***MMT during the POI. The unutilized
capacity, which was ***MMT during FY 2021-22 increased to ***MMT during the
POI. The unutilized capacity as at the end of the POI for the product as a whole is more
than sufficient to cover the entire import volume of ***MMT during the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 114 118 117
Production
(PUC+NPUC)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 107 116 115
Capacity Utilisation % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 94 98 98
Unutilised Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 152 130 127
260. HR Coils and sheets: The capacity increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to
***MMT during the POI, recording an increase of ***MMT during the period.
Production increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT during the POI.
While production increased during the two financial years preceding the POI over the
corresponding previous years, production declined during the POI. The capacity
utilization increased by ***% and the unutilized capacity declined by ***MMT during
the period. However, the unutilized capacity of ***MMT is sufficient to meet more
than ***% of imports of HR coils and sheets. In is also noted that actual production
included both PUC and non-PUC as the plants would produce both PUC and non-PUC.
However, non-PUC accounted for less than ***% of the total production and was
insignificant.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 115 117 113
Production
(PUC+NPUC)
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 119 117
Capacity
Utilisation
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 96 102 103
Unutilised
Capacity
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 149 102 89
261. HR Plate Mill Plates: There was no increase in the capacity of the domestic industry for
producing HR Plate Mill Plates during the injury analysis period. Production increased
from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT during POI. Production increased every
year compared to the corresponding previous year during the injury analysis period.
The capacity utilization increased by ***% during the injury analysis period. The
unutilized capacity of ***MMT was significantly higher than the import of ***MMT
during the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 100 100
Production '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 106 103
Capacity Utilisation % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 106 103
Unutilised Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 85 75 88
262. CR Coils and sheets: Capacity increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT
during the POI, recording an increase of ***MMT. As against such an increase in
capacity, production increased by ***MMT only during the said period. Production
increased every year compared to the corresponding previous year during the injury
analysis period. The unutilized capacity was ***MMT against total import of ***MMT
during the POI. The unutilized capacity was more than *** times the import volume,
indicating significant underutilization of capacity.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 119 127 127
Production '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 111 114
Capacity
Utilisation
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 87 88 90
Unutilised
Capacity
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 183 190 179
263. Metallic Coated Steel: Capacity increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT
during the POI. During the same period, while actual production increased from
***MMT to ***MMT, capacity utilization declined by ***%. Production increased
every year compared to the corresponding previous year during the injury analysis
period. The unutilized capacity of ***MMT was more than twice the volume of imports
during the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 116 120 126
Production '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 116 119
Capacity
Utilisation
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 91 96 95
Unutilised
Capacity
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 166 142 157
264. Colour Coated Steel: Capacity increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT
during the POI. During the same period, production increased from ***MMT to
***MMT, and the capacity utilization declined steeply from ***% to ***%.
Production increased every year compared to the corresponding previous year during
the injury analysis period. The unutilized capacity of *** MMT was *** times that of
imports during the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
Capacity '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 120 132 135
Production '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 109 117 113
Capacity
Utilisation
% *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 90 89 84
Unutilised
Capacity
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 172 198 231
v Gross Production, captive consumption and production net of captive
consumption
265. The gross production of the domestic industry increased during the injury analysis
period as shown in the table below:
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
HR coils, sheets and
plates
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 119 117
HR Plate Mill Plates '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 106 103
CR coils and sheets '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 111 114
Metallic Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 116 119
Colour Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 109 117 113
Total '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 107 116 115
266. The captive consumption by the domestic industry was as follows:
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
HR coils, sheets and
plates
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 105 106
HR Plate Mill Plates '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 128 118 89
CR coils and sheets '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 106 112 116
Metallic Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 109 106
Colour Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 120 65 41
Total '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 108 109
267. Production net of captive consumption is as follows:
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI
HR coils, sheets and
plates
'000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 112 126 122
HR Plate Mill Plates '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 105 103
CR coils and sheets '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 110 111
Metallic Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 106 120 127
Colour Coated Steel '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 118 114
Total '000 MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 119 118
268. For the PUC as a whole and for the five product categories individually, gross
production increased during the injury analysis period, but the unutilized capacity also
increased significantly, indicating the vulnerability of the domestic industry to
increasing import volumes. The production net of captive consumption increased
during 2022-23 and 2023-24 but declined by *** MMT during the POI.
vi Productivity
269. For the PUC as a whole: Due to a decline in the production volume of HR Coils and
sheets during the POI as compared to FY 2023-24, productivity per day recorded a
decline during the same period, though productivity per day per employee remained
constant. Productivity per employee increased during the injury analysis period
indicating that productivity was not a cause of injury to the domestic industry.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 107 116 115
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 97 107 108
Productivity per day
per employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 100 100
270. HR Coils and sheets: Similar to the PUC as a whole, production of HR Coils and sheets
declined during the POI as compared to 2022-23 and consequently led to a decline in
volume of production per day and production per employee during the POI. However,
the productivity per day per employee did not suffer. It increased during 2023-24 and
remained at the increased level during the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 119 117
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 113 112
Productivity per day per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 113 113
271. HR Plate Mill Plates: Productivity per day increased during 2022-23 and 2023-24
compared to the corresponding previous years. However, as the production during POI
declined compared to 2023-24, productivity per day also declined during POI.
Productivity per employee marginally declined in 2022-23 but increased significantly
during 2023-24, and during the POI. Productivity per day per employee remained
constant throughout the injury analysis period.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 103 106 103
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 99 113 116
Productivity per day per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 100 100 100
272. CR Coils and sheets: Productivity per day increased every year and the POI during the
injury analysis period. Productivity per employee declined in 2022-23 compared to
2021-22 but increased thereafter. Productivity per day per employee was ***MT during
2021-22 but remained at ***MT thereafter.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 104 111 114
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 82 86 87
Productivity per day per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 87 87 87
273. Metallic Coated Steel: Productivity per day increased every year during the entire injury
analysis period. Productivity per employee declined during 2022-23 compared to 2021-
22, but increased thereafter. Productivity per day per employee remained at ***MT
during the injury analysis period except during 2022-23 when it was ***MT.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 105 116 119
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 90 95 100
Productivity per day per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 90 100 100
274. Colour Coated Steel: Productivity per day increased during 2022-23 and 2023-24
compared to the corresponding previous years. However, it declined during the POI
due to the decline in the volume of production. While productivity per employee
increased through the injury period, productivity per day per employee remained at
***MT during the first two years and at ***MT during 2023-24 and the POI.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Productivity per day MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 117 113
Productivity per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 124 125
Productivity per day per
employee
MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 108 124 125
275. The Authority considers that changes in productivity per day is reflective of the changes
in the volume of production. As the volume of production declined during the POI as
compared to the FY 2023-24, productivity per day also declined. There is no significant
change in the productivity per employee or productivity per day per employee. Thus,
the Authority holds that decline in productivity did not cause any serious injury to the
domestic industry.
vii Changes in inventory levels
276. PUC as a whole: Average inventory of the PUC as a whole almost doubled as it
increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT during the POI. The trend was
similar in terms of number of days of production as well as sales.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 133 180 203
Average Inventory as
no. of days of
production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 125 163 188
Average Inventory as
no. of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 123 146 169
277. HR Coils and sheets: Average inventory of HR Coils and sheets increased from
***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT during the POI. During the same period,
average inventory as number of days production increased from ***days to ***days,
and as number of days of sales, it increased from ***days to ***days.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 134 182 195
Average Inventory as no.
of days of production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 122 152 167
Average Inventory as no.
of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 120 145 162
278. HR Plate Mill Plates: Average inventory increased to ***times during the POI
compared to 2021-22. In terms of no. of days of production, it increased by *** days,
and in terms of no. of days of sales, it increased by *** days.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 122 198 262
Average Inventory as no.
of days of production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 118 188 255
Average Inventory as no.
of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 121 196 268
279. CR Coils and sheets: Average inventory of CR Coils and sheets increased from
***MMT during 2021-22 to ***MMT during the POI. During the same period, both
in terms of no. of days of production and sales, it recorded a significant increase.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 135 160 158
Average Inventory as no.
of days of production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 130 144 139
Average Inventory as no.
of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 135 143 142
280. Metallic Coated Steel: Average inventory increased from ***MMT during 2021-22 to
*** MMT during the POI. In terms of no. of days of production, it increased by
***days and in terms of no. of days of sales, it increased by *** days.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 135 174 204
Average Inventory as no.
of days of production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 128 150 171
Average Inventory as no.
of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 130 145 161
281. Colour Coated Steel: Average inventory increased from *** MMT during 2021-22 to
*** MMT during the POI. In terms of no. of days of production, it increased from ***
days to ***days, and in terms of no. of days of sales, it increased from ***days to
***days during the injury analysis period.
Particulars Units FY 2021-
22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Average Inventory MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 141 192 238
Average Inventory as no.
of days of production
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 130 164 210
Average Inventory as no.
of days of Sales
Days *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 136 164 213
282. Average inventory of the PUC as a whole and each of the five categories thereof have
increased significantly during the injury analysis period.
viii Changes in Profits and losses
283. For PUC as a whole: The Profit Before Tax (“PBT”) declined from Rs. *** crores
during 2021-22 to Rs. *** crores during 2022-23, recording a year-on-year decline of
***%. It increased during 2023-24 but declined again during the POI. PBT during the
POI was only ***% of the PBT achieved during the base year 2021-22. PBIT and cash
profit also follow a similar trend. PBT per MT, PBIT per MT and cash profit per MT
declined by ***%, ***% and ***% respectively during the POI compared to the base
year 2021-22.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
PBIT Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 7 35 24
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 25 50 41
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 20 47 38
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 6 27 18
PBIT Trend PMT 100 21 38 31
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 16 35 29
284. HR Coils and sheets: PBT on HR coils and sheets declined from Rs. ***crores during
2021-22 to Rs. *** crores during the POI, recording a decline of ***%. PBT declined
during 2022-23 by ***% compared to 2021-22. It increased during 2023-24, but
declined again during the POI. The trend in cash profits was also similar. PBT per MT
reduced from Rs. *** during 2021-22 to Rs. *** during the POI, showing a decline of ***%.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
PBIT Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 11 38 22
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 29 54 42
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 25 50 37
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 9 26 16
PBIT Trend PMT 100 23 38 30
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 20 35 27
285. HR Plate Mill Plates: PBT declined from Rs. *** crores during 2021-22 to Rs. ***
during the POI, a decline of ***%. During the same period, PBIT declined by ***%
and cash profits by ***%. PBT per MT, PBIT per MT and cash profit per MT also
showed a similar trend. PBIT per MT declined from Rs. *** PMT during 2021-22 to
Rs. *** PMT during the POI.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
PBIT Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 25 53 53
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 37 61 59
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 37 62 63
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 24 50 51
PBIT Trend PMT 100 35 57 56
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 35 58 60
286. CR Coils and sheets: PBT declined from Rs. *** crores during 2021-22 to Rs. ***
crores during the POI recording a steep decline of ***%. During the same period, PBIT
declined by ***% and cash profits by ***%. PBT per MT, PBIT per MT and cash
profit per MT also showed a similar trend. PBIT per MT declined from Rs. *** PMT
during 2021-22 to a paltry Rs. ***PMT during the POI, showing a decline of ***%.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
PBIT Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 0 15 9
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 17 30 26
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 12 28 22
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 0 12 7
PBIT Trend PMT 100 14 24 20
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 11 22 17
287. Metallic Coated Steel: PBT was Rs. *** crores during 2021-22. It turned into a loss of
Rs. *** crores during 2022-23. PBT improved to slightly above the breakeven level
by reaching a profit of Rs. *** crores during 2023-24 but turned again into a loss of Rs.
*** crores during the POI. On a per MT basis, PBT declined from a profit of Rs. ***
PMT during 2021-22 to a loss of Rs. *** during the POI, showing a decline of ***%.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** (***) *** (***)
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** (***) *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** (***) *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** (***) *** (***)
PBIT Rs. PMT *** (***) *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** (***) *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 (54) 3 (2)
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 (19) 24 22
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 (40) 14 11
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 (41) 2 (1)
PBIT Trend PMT 100 (15) 17 14
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 (31) 10 7
288. Colour Coated Steel: PBT declined from Rs.*** crores during 2021-22 to Rs. ***
crores during the POI recording a steep decline of ***%. During the same period, PBIT
declined by ***% and cash profits by ***%. PBT per MT, PBIT per MT and cash profit
per MT also showed a similar trend. PBIT per MT declined from Rs. *** PMT during
2021-22 to Rs. *** PMT during the POI, showing a decline of ***%.
Particulars Units 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
Profit Before Tax
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
PBIT
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Cash Profit
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Profit Before Tax Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
PBIT Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Cash Profit Rs. PMT *** *** *** ***
Trend
Profit Before Tax
Trend
Actual 100 8 49 34
PBIT
Trend
Actual 100 32 61 47
Cash Profit
Trend
Actual 100 15 54 43
Profit Before Tax Trend PMT 100 7 41 29
PBIT Trend PMT 100 27 52 40
Cash Profit Trend PMT 100 13 46 37
289. The profitability of the domestic industry declined during 2022-23 compared to 2021-
22. It increased marginally during 2023-24 but declined again during the POI.
Compared to the base year, profitability during the POI stands eroded significantly.
This shows that the financial position of the domestic industry is highly fragile and
vulnerable.
ix Changes in employment
290. From a level of ***employees during 2021-22, the number of employees increased to
***during 2022-23. The industry suffered significant losses during 2022-23. As one of
the measures to reduce costs, the number of employees was reduced to ***in 2023-24
and further to ***during the POI. However, the number of employees during the POI
was ***% higher compared to 2021-22.
Particulars 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
HR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
HR Plate Mill Plates *** *** *** ***
CR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
Metallic Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
Colour Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
PUC as whole *** *** *** ***
Trend
HR Coils and Sheets 100 109 106 105
HR Plate Mill Plates 100 104 93 89
CR Coils and Sheets 100 127 129 131
Metallic Coated Steel 100 117 121 119
Colour Coated Steel 100 100 95 91
PUC as whole 100 111 108 106
x Conclusions on serious injury
291. The factual position examined above regarding injury parameters relating to may be
summarized as follows:
i. Imports have increased significantly in absolute terms, in relation to domestic
production, and in relation to demand for the PUC in India.
ii. The imports have increased as a result of unforeseen circumstances and as the effect
of obligations incurred under GATT 1947.
iii. The increase in imports was recent, sudden, sharp and significant.
iv. Market share of imports have increased from ***% during 2021-22 to ***% during
the POI. During the same period, market share of the domestic industry declined
by ***%.
v. Sales volumes of the domestic industry for the PUC increased by ***% during
injury analysis period. While it increased by ***% during 2022-23, a further ***%
during 2023-24, and ***% during the POI, which is the most recent period.
vi. Capacity and actual production increased significantly during the injury analysis
period. However, volume of production declined by *** MMT ***% during POI
as compared to 2023-24.
vii. Unutilized capacity of the domestic industry increased to *** MMT during the
POI, which accounted for ***% of the capacity.
viii. Productivity per day and productivity per employee increased during the injury
analysis period. Productivity per day per employee remained unaffected.
ix. Average inventory levels increased significantly both in absolute terms, and in terms
of number of days of production or sales.
x. Profitability of the domestic industry declined significantly. PBT in absolute terms
declined by ***% during POI compared to the base year 2021-22. PBT per MT
declined by ***% during the same period. Consequential decline in PBIT and Cash
Profits was also observed.
xi. The profitability of the domestic industry declined during 2022-23 compared to 2021-
22. It increased marginally during 2023-24 but declined again during the POI.
Compared to the base year, profitability during the POI stands eroded significantly.
This shows that the financial position of the domestic industry is highly fragile and
vulnerable.
xii. No. of employees increased by ***% during 2022-23 over 2021-22 and reached ***.
As the domestic industry suffered significant losses during 2022-23, as one of the
measures to reduce costs, the number of employees was reduced to *** in 2023-24
and further to *** during the POI. However, the number of employees
during the POI was ***% higher compared to 2021-22.
J. CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN INCREASED IMPORT AND SERIOUS INJURY
OR THREAT OF SERIOUS INJURY:
292. The WTO Panel on Korea-Dairy
15
set forth the basic approach for determining
“causation”, as follows:
“In performing its causal link assessment, it is our view that the national authority
needs to analyse and determine whether developments in the industry, considered
by the national authority to demonstrate serious injury, have been caused by the
increased imports. In its causation assessment, the national authority is obliged
to evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a
bearing on the situation of that industry. In addition, if the national authority has
identified factors other than increased imports which have caused injury to the
Domestic Industry, it shall ensure that any injury caused by such factors is not
considered to have been caused by the increased imports. To establish a causal
link, Korea has to demonstrate that the injury to its Domestic Industry results from
increased imports. In other words, Korea has to demonstrate that the imports of
SMPP cause injury to the Domestic Industry producing milk powder and raw milk.
In addition, having analyzed the situation of the Domestic Industry, the Korean
authority has the obligation not to attribute to the increased imports any injury
caused by other factors.”
293. While the import volume increased, import prices declined during the injury
analysis period. A significant volume of imports undercut the prices of the domestic
industry as noted below.
294. HR Coils and Sheets: During the POI, the weighted average price of all imports of
HR coils and sheets was Rs. ***PMT. Compared to the domestic selling price of
Rs. ***PMT, price undercutting on an overall basis was ***%.
295. The weighted average import prices of imports declined from Rs. ***PMT during
2021-22 to Rs. ***PMT during the POI. The domestic selling prices declined from
Rs. ***PMT to Rs. ***PMT during the same period. The volume of imports that
undercut the prices of the domestic industry was just ***% during 2021-22. It
increased to ***%, ***% and ***% during the subsequent periods. During the POI,
of the total imports of ***MMT, over ***% of the imports *** MMT undercut the
prices of the domestic industry. The undercutting percentage was ***% during the
POI.
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume 000’
MT 995 1,926 3,081 3,973
Undercutting imports
volume
000’
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 285 595 809
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 149 192 203
Import Prices
Value of Undercutting
volume
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 253 548 721
Import Price of
Undercutting volume
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 89 92 89
Domestic Selling Price
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 92 87 84
Price Undercutting
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 110 54 48
Price Undercutting % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 120 60 53
296. HR Plate Mill Plates: On all imports taken together, there was no price undercutting.
However, of the total imports volume of ***MMT during the POI, more than ***%
i.e. ***MMT of HR Plate Mill Plates undercut the prices of the domestic industry
by ***% as shown in the table below.
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume ‘000
MT 302 312 619 892
Undercutting imports
volume
‘000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 62 671 682
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 60 327 227
Import Prices
Value of Undercutting
volume
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 59 663 669
Import Price of
Undercutting volume
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 94 99 99
Domestic Selling Price
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 98 94
Price Undercutting
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 161 89 52
Price Undercutting % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 175 92 50
297. CR Coils and sheets: On all imports taken together, there was no price
undercutting. Of the total imports of *** MMT during POI, *** MMT (accounting
for *** % undercut the prices of the domestic industry by ***% as shown in the
table below:
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume ‘000
MT 473 578 515 541
Undercutting imports
volume
‘000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 39 62 77
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 32 56 66
Import Prices
Value of Undercutting
volume
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 36 54 66
Import Price of
Undercutting volume
INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 92 86 86
Domestic Selling Price INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 93 86 84
Price Undercutting INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 82 75
Price Undercutting % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 106 94 88
298. Metallic Coated Steel: On all imports taken together, there was no price
undercutting. Of the total imports of ***MMT during POI, *** MMT (accounting
for ***% undercut the prices of the domestic industry by ***% as shown in the table
below:
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume ‘000
MT 381 518 762 803
Undercutting imports
volume
‘000
MT
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 69 170 143
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 50 84 67
Import Prices
Value of Undercutting
volume
Rs. In
crores
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 62 154 126
Import Price of
Undercutting volume
INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 89 91 88
Domestic Selling Price INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 89 86 82
Price Undercutting INR/MT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 87 85 80
Price Undercutting % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 90 90 90
299. Colour Coated Steel: On all imports taken together, there was no price undercutting.
Of the total imports of 0.404 MMT during POI, ***MMT (accounting for ***%)
undercut the prices of the domestic industry by ***% as shown in the table below:
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume ‘000
Mi Ton 142 190 366 404
Undercutting imports
volume
‘000
Mi Ton
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 157 400 439
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 116 155 153
Import Prices
Value of Undercutting
volume
करोड़ रु.
में
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 151 368 390
Import Price of
Undercutting volume
रुपए /
Mi Ton
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 97 93 89
Domestic Selling Price
रुपए /
Mi Ton
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 94 90 87
Price Undercutting
रुपए /
Mi Ton
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 87 85 80
Price Undercutting % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 90 90 90
300. For the PUC as a whole, total volume of imports and the undercutting volume
thereof are tabulated below:
Particulars UOM 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Import Volume
Total imports volume MMT 2,293 3,524 5,344 6,612
Undercutting imports
volume
MMT *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 146 335 414
Undercutting volume % % *** *** *** ***
Trend 100 95 143 143
301. The import volumes undercutting the domestic selling prices accounted for ***%
of total imports during 2021-22 and 2022-23. It increased significantly to ***%
during 2023-24 and the POI. In response to the entry of a large volume of imports
undercutting the domestic selling prices, the domestic industry had to reduce its
prices significantly to remain in the market and to prevent further increase in
imports at undercutting prices.
a. Price Depression:
302. The Domestic Selling Price (“DSP”) for HR Coils and sheets was depressed by
***% during the POI compared to 2021-22. During the same period, DSP of HR
Plate Mill Plates was depressed by ***%, CR Coils and sheets by ***%, Metallic
Coated Steel by ***% and Colour Coated steel by ***%. DSP was lower on a year on-year basis for each of the five categories every year during the injury analysis
period except one instance when the DSP of HR Plate Mills Plate increased by just
***% during 2022-23 over 2021-22. Thus, price depression was significant and
was present throughout the injury analysis period.
(INR per MT)
Particulars 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 POI
Actual
HR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
HR Plate Mill Plates *** *** *** ***
CR Coils and Sheets *** *** *** ***
Metallic Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
Colour Coated Steel *** *** *** ***
Trend
HR Coils and Sheets 100 92 87 84
HR Plate Mill Plates 100 101 98 94
CR Coils and Sheets 100 93 86 84
Metallic Coated Steel 100 89 86 82
Colour Coated Steel 100 94 90 87
b. Price Suppression:
303. HR Coils and sheets: For the injury analysis period, domestic selling prices declined by
Rs. *** PMT and the cost of sales increased by Rs. *** PMT leading to a cumulative
price suppression of Rs. *** PMT as shown in the table below.
Particulars UOM FY
2021-22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24 POI
Cumulative
Change
Domestic Selling
Price
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 92 87 84
Increase/(Decreas)
in Price
INR/M
T
*** (***) (***) (***)
Trend 100 55 41
Cost of Sales
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 117 106 104
Increase/(Decreas)
in Cost of Sales
INR/M
T
*** (***) (***) ***
Trend 100 -67 -7
Price Suppression
INR/M
T
*** (***)
*** ***
Trend 100 -19 12
304. HR Plate Mill Plates: During the injury analysis period, domestic selling prices
declined by Rs. ***PMT and the cost of sales increased by Rs. ***PMT leading to a
cumulative price suppression of Rs. ***PMT as shown in the table below.
Particulars UOM FY
2021-22
FY 2022-
23
FY 2023-
24
POI Cumulative
e Change
Domestic Selling
Price
INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 101 98 94
Increase/(Decrease)
in Price
INR/M
T
*** (***) (***) (***)
Trend 100 -213 -312
Cost of Sales INR/M
T
*** *** *** ***
Trend 100 120 110 104
Increase/(Decrease)
in Cost of Sales
INR/M
T
*** (***) (***) ***
Trend 100 -51 -29
Price Suppression INR/M
T
*** (***) (***) ***
Trend 100 -34 -1
305. CR Coils and sheets: During the injury analysis period, domestic selling prices
declined by Rs. ***PMT and the cost of sales increased by Rs. ***PMT leading to a
cumulative price suppression of Rs. ***PMT as shown in the