Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I—Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 216] NEW DELHI, SUNDAY, AUGUST 17, 2025/ SHRAVANA 26, 1947
CG-DL-E-25082025-265674
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department Of Commerce)
(DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2025
FINAL FINDINGS
Case No. SG-01/2024
Subject: Safeguard Investigation concerning imports of “Non-Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products”.
A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. F. No. 22/01/2024-DGTR.—The Indian Steel Association (“ISA” or the “Applicant”), on behalf of its Members,
namely, a) ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited and its then related entity AMNS Khopoli Limited, b) JSW Steel
Limited and its two related entities namely JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, and Bhushan Power & Steel Limited,
c) Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and d) 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 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 products 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.
4. On March 18, 2025, the Authority issued a preliminary finding recommending imposition of a provisional safeguard
duty of 12% for a period of 200 days, subject to a price benchmark, as mentioned in paragraph 342 of the preliminary
findings. Vide Notification No. 01/2025-Customs (SG) dated April 21, 2025, the Central Government imposed
provisional safeguard duty as recommended by the Authority for a period of 200 days. The said provisional duty is in
force till November 7, 2025.
B. PROCEDURE
5. 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:
| S. No. | Name of Interested Party | S. No. | Name of Interested Party |
| :----- | :------------------------------------------------------- | :----- | :------------------------------------------------ |
| 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 | 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 of Korea | 56. | Krishca Strapping Solutions Limited |
| 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. Ltd | 62. | STEEL & BEARING CORPORATION |
| 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 CO., LTD. | 88. | Global Trade Research Initiative |
| 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 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.”, | 94. | Mahindra Defence Systems Limited |
| 95. | JIANGYIN XINGCHENG SPECIAL STEEL WORKS CO., LTD | 96. | NLMK India Service Center Private Limited |
| 97. | SHOUGANG QIAN'AN IRON and Shougang Jingtang United | 98. | Hella India Automotive Pvt. Ltd. |
| 99. | 1. HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY, Korea RP 2. HYUNDAI STEEL PIPE INDIA Pvt. Ltd. 3. HYUNDAI STEEL ANANTAPUR Pvt. Ltd. 4. HYUNDAI STEEL INDIA Pvt. Ltd. | 100. | Sansera Engineering Limited, |
| 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 (“MOCIPL”) | 130. | MACHANI RAMESH ENGINEERING 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 Limited | 142. | Pushpanjali Drums Private 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 of India (ACMA) | 188. | Veegee Industrial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. |
| 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 Associations (FOKIA) | 194. | CSCI Steel Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. |
| 195. | Taiwan Steel & Iron Industries Association（TSIIA） | 196. | SKH SHEET METALS COMPONENTS PVT. LTD |
| 197. | METAL & STAINLESS STEEL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION | 198. | WKM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. |
| 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 M/s. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED | 224. | Wooyoung Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., |
| 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. | Shri Balaji Sai Steels |
| 245. | Toyota Boshoku device India Pvt. Ltd | 246. | Jain Bros. |
| 247. | DAEBU Automotive seat India Pvt Ltd | 248. | Ratnadeep Steel Traders Iron & Steel Merchants |
| 249. | SSAB Swedish Steel India Private Limited | 250. | Ranka Steels |
| 251. | Windar Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd | 252. | Mahek Ispat Private limited |
| 253. | Durga Ispat Udyog | 254. | Geeta Udyog Iron & Steel Merchant |
| 255. | SK Aggarwal & Co. | 256. | Mercury Steel Agency |
| 257. | Hide Industries | 258. | Meenakshi Steel Corporation |
| 259. | Jindal Stainless Limited | 260. | Mercury Steel Pvt Ltd |
| 261. | Heena Steel LLP | 262. | Metal Trading Company |
| 263. | Narmada Iron & Associates P Ltd | 264. | Mittal Agencies |
| 265. | Bharatkumar Indrasen Trading Pvt Ltd. | 266. | Bajaj Industrial Alloyes Pvt Ltd |
| 267. | Rajam Steel Traders | 268. | Mandot Steel |
| 269. | Assam Roofing Limited | 270. | Sree Arumuga Steel Traders |
| 271. | Global Trade Research Initiative | 272. | Hindustan Hardwares |
f) After initiation of investigation, the Authority obtained DGCIS data for the relevant period and considered
the same in these findings. The injury and other information in respect of DI are based on the company
specific data of the petitioners.
g) The Authority conducted a verification of the data submitted by the applicant companies to the extent
considered necessary. 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) 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 the 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 findings.
k) The Authority issued a preliminary finding on March 18, 2025. Parties were permitted 30 days-time to file
their comments on the same.
l) The Authority held an oral hearing on 5th and 6th July 2025. Parties were permitted time till of 7 days from
the date of the oral hearing to file their written submissions, and 10 days from the date of filing the written
submissions to file their rejoinders.
m) ‘***’ 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.
n) The Authority has considered all the arguments raised and information provided by all the interested parties
to the extent the same are supported with evidence and considered relevant to the present investigation.
o) The exchange rate for the POI was 1 US$ = Rs. 83.09.
C. SUBMISSIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
6. Several interested parties made various submissions during the course of the investigation. Parties also made
submissions regarding the scope of the PUC. All submissions and comments received regarding the scope of the PUC
is recorded in the portion of these final findings titled “Product Under Consideration”. The submissions of the parties
regarding other issues are recorded in this section.
I. Submissions of the Domestic Industry
7. The domestic industry made the following submissions:
i. The applicant companies have the standing to file the application as their collective output of the
like article or a directly competitive article in India constitutes a major proportion of the total
production of the said article in India;.
ii. Global Trade Research Initiative (“GTRI”) cannot be considered as an “interested party” in terms of
Rule 2(b) of the Safeguard Rules. Therefore, the submissions made by GTRI must be disregarded.
iii. Neither the Customs Tariff Act, nor the Safeguard Rules mandates the holding of a public hearing
prior to the issuance of the preliminary findings.
iv. The Authority, after issuing the preliminary findings, has given an opportunity to all interested
parties to file comments, which would be considered in the final findings.
v. The Madras High Court has held that there is no mandate for the Authority to provide an
opportunity for hearing prior to issuance of the preliminary findings.
vi. The oral hearing was conducted on 5th and 6th June 2025. Interested parties were provided ample
opportunity to speak during the hearing.
vii. The presentation displayed by the domestic industry during the oral hearing was circulated to all
interested parties in the written submission.
viii. Any variance in comparable time periods is to assist the Ld. DG to make a proper and holistic
comparison between financial years, calendar years and period of investigation with the respective
previous years.
ix. The DI has provided production and costing details segregated in terms of the five categories of the
PUC. Certain categories of the PUC are only produced by a few of the constituent parties of the
domestic industry, not by all. Disclosing the actual aggregate data for each product category could
inadvertently reveal sensitive information about individual producers, making the data identifiable at
the party level.
x. Neither the Agreement on Safeguards, the Act or the Rules provides any guidance as to how the
PUC must be defined.
xi. In Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures and EU – Steel Safeguard (Turkey), the Panel held
that different types of products which are not inter-se substitutable, may be included within the
scope of the PUC.
xii. The EU had included 26 different product categories in its safeguard investigation concerning
“certain steel products”. The Panel held that there is no requirement to demonstrate that each
product category is like or directly competitive with other category/ies.
xiii. The PUC is Non-Alloy and Alloy Steel Flat Products, 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.
xiv. Certain interested parties have requested for exclusion of certain grades from the scope of the PUC.
However, some exclusion requests are vague and broad, covering a wide category of products.
xv. The DI has submitted various invoices demonstrating sales of “like or directly competitive articles”.
xvi. The DI is not required to demonstrate that it manufactures products with identical technical
specifications.
xvii. Products that are not “like” the imported goods may still be covered within the definition of the
PUC if they are “directly competitive”.
xviii. The test for “likeness” typically involves an evaluation of the product characteristics such as
physical and chemical characteristics, end-usage, consumer preferences, etc.
xix. Directly competitive products are substitutable or interchangeable with one another and “offer
alternative ways of satisfying a particular need or taste”.
xx. Domestically produced products and imported products may be considered as “like articles” even if
the two do not share identical physical characteristics or are not perfect substitutes of one another, as
long as the imported product has the capacity to cause serious injury to the domestic producers
through some form of competitive impact.
xxi. While evaluating whether the domestically produced goods are directly competitive with the
imported goods, the examination must be done on a general level, and the needs and preferences of
each and every producer is not relevant.
xxii. Even if the domestically produced goods do not match the exact and precise technical specifications
as that of the identified goods, the DG must examine whether the domestically produced goods have
a “capacity to compete” or “offer alternative ways of satisfying a particular need or taste”.
xxiii. Merely because certain consumers choose to utilize imported grades with certain specifications does
not mean that there exists no competitive relationship between those the imported grades and the
domestically produced grades.
xxiv. The burden of proof lies on the party that requests for product exclusion to prove that the domestic
industry does not manufacture the like or directly competitive product.
xxv. The burden of proof must be discharged with respect to each grade for which exclusion is sought.
Parties cannot simply mention the names of the grade and provide general assertions that the
domestic industry is unable to manufacture the like or directly competitive product.
xxvi. Nippon Steel Corporation, JFE, Kobe Steel Ltd., 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., JFE Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel
Corporation have requested for exclusion of 309 grades of steel, but has made only vague assertions
without providing any evidence whatsoever for any of the 309 grades that the domestic industry
does not manufacture like or directly competitive articles.
xxvii. LG and Godrej have provided emails from AMNS, Tata Steel and JSW regarding inability to supply
the grades. However, it has not provided any evidence to prove that the other domestic producers are
unable to supply the said grades. Further, Tata Steel is not an applicant.
xxviii. The like or directly competitive grades for which Metal One Corporation, Shivalik Bimetals and
Manaksia Steel have sought exclusion have been supplied by the domestic industry. Invoices have
been provided in this regard.
xxix. POSCO Korea, POSCO SteelOn and POSCO Maharashtra Steel Pvt. Ltd. have not provided any
evidence to demonstrate that any of the grades for which they seek exclusion cannot be
manufactured by the domestic industry.
xxx. CSCI’s request for exclusion of HR required to make electrical steel may not be accepted since the
DI produces the like or directly competitive article.
xxxi. In previous safeguard investigations, the Authority has recommended imposition of the duties
despite the DI’s inability to meet the entire domestic demand.
xxxii. The Tribunal has held that quality differences are not sufficient grounds for seeking product
exclusions.
xxxiii. The argument that Japan and Korea have exported superior quality grades at higher price is not true
since the import prices and volumes from these countries are comparable with the import prices
from China and the average import prices.
xxxiv. Various QCOs have been issued for steel products to ensure the quality of the steel grades.
xxxv. If BIS standards are insufficient, the interested parties may seek revision of the said standard before
the BIS Technical Committee.
xxxvi. The DI has been granted approvals and recognitions regarding the quality of the grades supplied by
them.
xxxvii. Imports by AMNS does not disentitle it from being considered as a part of the domestic industry.
xxxviii. The Safeguard Rules do not exclude importing applicants from the domestic industry.
xxxix. Imports by AMNS are miniscule in comparison to the total production..
xl. The user questionnaire filed by AMNS does not affect its position since it has filed letters stating
that it aligns itself with the other applicant companies.
xli. In the solar safeguard investigation, the Authority excluded only those entities that entirely imported
solar cells,but did not manufacture the same.
xlii. In the safeguard investigation concerning Isopropyl Alcohol, the Authority did not disqualify an
applicant from the domestic industry despite the fact that the imports by the applicant amounted to a
significant percentage of its total production capacity..
xliii. There is a recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports of the PUC as a whole, as well as
in each of the five product categories, in each of the three methodologies presented by the
applicant in the petition..
xliv. In EU – Steel Safeguards (Turkey), the Panel noted that the only requirement is to demonstrate an
increase in imports for the PUC as a whole, which may be supplemented at a product-category level.
xlv. In the EU’s investigation, the European Commission defined the product under consideration as
“certain steel products”, which comprised of 26 different “product categories”. For the sake of
analysis, the EC grouped the 26 different “product categories” into three “product families”, namely,
“flat products”, “long products” and “tubes”. In its examination of import trends, the EC found that
four product categories showed a decline in imports during the most recent period and 15 product
categories showed a less than 10% increase in imports during the most recent period. Further 2
product families showed decline in imports during the most recent period. Yet the panel found no
inconsistencies in EU’s investigation.
xlvi. Under the Agreement on Safeguards, no country-specific exemptions is permissible except for
developing countries.
xlvii. Under the India – Korea FTA, India may exclude Korea from the safeguard measure only if Korea is
not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof. However, import volumes from Korea are
the highest and prices are also low during the POI.
xlviii. There is no requirement under the Act or the Rules for the Authority to examine whether the
increase in imports is as a result of “unforeseen developments”.
xlix. The word “unforeseen” has been interpreted to mean “unexpected” and not “unforeseeable”. It must
be examined whether the event was “unforeseen” while undertaking GATT obligations.
l. The recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports occurred due to the confluence of: a)
trade protection measures against steel products; b) the global excess capacity coupled with slowing
demand; and c) changes in ASEAN trade patterns.
li. Other countries have imposed a total of 129 trade remedy measures between 2019 and 2023 on steel
products. As of date, the WTO’s database shows that 520 anti-dumping measures and 89
countervailing duties are currently in force against all steel products.
lii. In addition to trade remedy measures, several countries including the US, Mexico, Canada and
Brazil have imposed tariffs on steel products.
liii. In EU – Steel Safeguards (Turkey), the Panel noted that rise in trade remedy measures can be
considered as unforeseen developments.
liv. The capacity in China, Korea and Japan far exceeds their demand. OECD predicts a further increase
in excess capacity.
lv. In EU – Steel Safeguards (Turkey), the Panel noted that the increase in excess capacity can
constitute unforeseen developments.
lvi. Since the imposition of the US Section 232 measures, there has been a decline in imports of steel
flat products into the US. Further, EU has also reported a decline in imports of steel products
subsequent to the imposition of trade remedy measures.
lvii. China has increased its investments in steel production facilities in ASEAN region.
lviii. The OECD and World Steel Association has reported sufficient excess capacity in Finished Steel,
which is a good indicator for excess capacity in flat steel or the PUC.
lix. There is a clear correlation between China’s three red lines policy and the increase in production of
steel flat products.
lx. The increase in imports has occurred as a result of the effect of obligations incurred by India under
the GATT, including tariff concessions, and obligations under GATT Articles I, XI, and XVI.
lxi. The global export price of HR Coils in May 2025 was USD 450 per MT, which was lower than the
price prevailing in May 1995, i.e., 30 years ago. By adding the applicable customs duty and the
provisional safeguard duty of 12%, the landed value of HR Coils will still be lower than the selling
prices of the domestic industry.
lxii. World Steel Dynamics (WSD) states that Chinese mills are exporting at USD 450 per MT as against
an operating cost of USD 527 per MT, i.e., at an operating loss of USD 87 per MT.
lxiii. The domestic industry is suffering from decline in profitability, and in some cases, losses.
lxiv. The production and capacity of the DI has increased in order to keep up with the demand. Further,
blast furnaces must operate continuously and are not designed to be shut down. Therefore, in order
to mitigate losses as a result of low priced imports, the domestic industry was constrained to incur
significant losses.
lxv. The global overcapacity has increased to unprecedented levels, which poses a threat of serious
injury to the domestic industry.
lxvi. Despite the increase in cost of sales, there is significant price undercutting.
lxvii. Merely because the domestic industry has earned profits during F.Y. 2021-22 does not mean that
such profits were ‘abnormal’.
lxviii. China poses a threat of serious injury since the Steelprices in China have declined, the Chinese blast
furnaces are operating at 90% capacity, production of steel has continued to increase since 2018,
there is a decline in domestic demand due to a decline in investments in infrastructure projects.
lxix. Between January and April 2025, the domestic demand in China fell by 6 MMT and is expected to
fall by 30 MMT by the end of the year.
lxx. In calendar year 2024 alone, China exported 110.7 MMT of steel. In the first three months of the
calendar year 2025, China exported 27.4 MMT of steel. China’s exports of flat steel products
increased by 25% in 2024 compared to 2023.
lxxi. In 2025 alone, China has been subjected to 19 trade remedy initiations / measures.
lxxii. The US has increased the rate of the Section 232 duties from 25% to 50% and has revoked all
country exemptions previously granted. Further, the US has imposed reciprocal tariffs. Therefore,
there is a threat of trade diversion of steel products from the US to India.
lxxiii. Imposition of the duties would be in public interest since the national steel policy 2017 targets a
total steel production of 300 MMT by 2030, which requires investments of INR 2,00,000 Crore per
year till 2030.
lxxiv. Self-sufficiency of steel is also critical for national security.
lxxv. In the safeguard investigation of Phthalic Anhydride, the Authority noted that it is not required to
justify the rate of duty in preliminary findings.
lxxvi. The domestic industry has provided a detailed adjustment plan. Neither the Agreement on
Safeguards, nor the domestic legal framework prescribe the format for providing an adjustment
plan.
lxxvii. Although the Agreement on Safeguards states that a Safeguard Measure must be imposed to
facilitate adjustment of the domestic industry to the increased imports, it does not provide any
guidance as to how such an adjustment must be achieved.
lxxviii. The other interested parties have failed to demonstrate why the adjustment plan provided by the
domestic industry is not adequate.
lxxx. In any case, in the previous investigations relied on by other interested parties, the absence of an
adjustment plan was not the sole reason for terminating the investigation.
lxxxi. The claim that the domestic producers will monopolise is not valid since the applicant companies
are listed companies and are subject to several regulations. Further, the Competition Commission of
India is the appropriate forum for addressing issues regarding anti-competitive behaviour.
lxxxii. No evidence has been provided by any interested party that the duties will increase the price of
downstream products.
lxxxiii. The US Section 232 tariffs were not found to have caused inflation and had only a temporary effect
on overall price levels.
lxxxiv. In previous safeguard investigations, the Authority imposed a rate of duty ranging from 10% to
35%. In the light of threat of serious injury, the 12% provisional duty is required to be enhanced.
II. Government of Japan
8. The Government of Japan made the following submissions:
a. The provisional measures lack legal basis and should be withdrawn immediately.
b. The identified unforeseen developments, multiple trade restrictive measures, excess capacity,
declining demand, lacks supporting data and contains factual errors as well as outdated facts.
c. The additional 12% duty imposed does not exceed India’s relevant concession or suspend any other
obligation, and is not legitimate.
d. Japanese steel products are different from Indian products in their quality, price range, etc. They do
not cause injury to the Indian industry.
e. Majority of imports from Japan are from Nippon Steel Corporation to AMNS. These products
cannot be substituted by Indian steel products. AMNS is constructing its blast furnace in Hajira and
once it becomes operational, there will be no requirement for imports.
f. Other Japanese imports are for specific requirements.
g. Japan has made significant contributions to Make in India through technological cooperation and
investments.
III. Government of Indonesia
9. The Government of Indonesia made the following submissions:
a. Imports of the PUC from Indonesia are negligible.
b. Imports of none of the five steel categories being investigated exceed 3%. Thus Indonesia is
required to be exempt from the duties in terms of Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
IV. Government of Russia
10. The Government of Russia made the following submissions:
a. There is no recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports.
b. The overall trend in supply of the PUC to India reached 6,000,000 MT on average after a significant
increase in 2015. Due to COVID restrictions, the imports declined by 40% from 5, 693,233 in 2019
to 3,408,569 MT in 2020.
c. The current level of import is a result of recovery to pre-pandemic levels.
d. Since safeguard investigations are not for remedying unfair trade practices, the threshold for serious
injury is much higher.
e. Sales volumes of the domestic industry reveals growth during the POI in comparison with 2021-22.
f. Production increased during the POI by 15%. Production capacity increased by 17%.
g. PBT decreased by 76%, but this is on account of other factors.
h. Export duty on steel exports led to a decline of 60% in exports of OP Jindal Group in FY2023.
i. JSW plans on investing INR 5 billion on setting up a new plant with an annual steelmaking capacity
of 9,00,000 MT.
j. Project of AMNS of USD 4.68 Billion steel plant with an annual production of 7 millio MT.
k. Safeguard measures of third countries were imposed in 2018-2020. The preliminary findings
mention steel related investigations in 2011-2016. These could not be considered as unforeseen.
l. The global excess capacity could not be classified as unforeseen since this problem has been
discussed at multilateral levels for more than 15 years.
V. European Union
11. The European Union made the following submissions:
a. The product scope remains large and encompasses certain products that are not domestically produced in
India. These products should be excluded.
b. Sales of the DI increased by 33%, capacity increased by 17% and production increased by 15%.
c. Employment and productivity per day per employee rose across all product categories.
d. The market share of the DI decreased by 5% against an increase in consumption of 108%
e. DI experienced sharp decline in profits but remained profitable throughout the period analysed.
f. Other factors such as rising costs linked with capacity expansion are attributable to the injury to the domestic
industry.
g. Increasing capacity appears misaligned with prudent business practice. Any expansion that increases market
stress should not be rewarded with safeguard measures.
h. India should consider targeted trade remedy measures against China, Japan and South Korea since imports
from these three countries have increased substantially.
i. The duty of 12% is excessively punitive, whereas a TRQ would be more appropriate.
VI. Korea Iron & Steel Association (KOSA)
12. The interested parties made the following submissions:
a. The Authority may provide a more granular and technically accurate definition of the PUC. The current
definition of the PUC is overly broad.
b. The request of Korean Steel Producers and KOSA for exclusion of various categories has not been
addressed. Although Electro-Galvanized Iron (EGI) has been excluded, its downstream products such as
Laminated Vinyl Coated Metal (VCM) remains within the scope.
c. KOSA provided a list of 100 grades, which are not manufactured by the DI – they are required to be
excluded.
d. Hot-rolled steel supplied by POSCO to its subsidiary, POSCO Maharashtra, which cannot be fully sourced
domestically. Automotive-grade cold-rolled and coated steel provided by Hyundai Steel that meets
stringent quality standards. Hot Dip Aluminum Zinc Alloy Metallic Coated Steel Strip which is not
produced by local mills but is manufactured by Dongkuk CM. High-specification color-coated sheets used
in warehouse construction, currently supplied by KG Dongbu Steel due to insufficient local supply.
Uniquely engineered color-coated products developed through long-term technical collaboration between
Indian customers and Korean suppliers such as DCM, Aju Steel, and SeAH CM
e. Korean steel does not directly compete with Indian steel, nor is it a substantial cause of injury to the
Indian industry; rather, they fill critical gaps in the Indian supply chain and serves as a complementary
input vital to the Indian industry.
VII. POSCO, Korea RP, POSCO Maharashtra Steel Pvt. Ltd., India, POSCO STEELEON, Korea RP.
13. The interested parties made the following submissions:
i. AMNS and AMNS Khopoli, both of which are major importers of the PUC, have filed user
questionnaire responses. They highlight the poor quality, lack of supply and other issues associated
with domestically produced steel.
ii. AMNS and AMNS Khopoli cannot be considered as a part of the domestic industry. AMNS has
requested for the exclusion of 13 grades. AMNS’ interests are fundamentally misaligned with the
collective interest of the domestic industry.
iii. The Authority must exclude AMNS and AMNS Khopoli, and redetermine the standing and injury to
the domestic industry.
iv. In the safeguard investigation concerning solar cells, the domestic producers that had imported the
PUC were not considered to be a part of the domestic industry.
v. The present scope of the PUC is flawed. The PUC can only include articles that are “like or directly
competitive” with the imported products.
vi. In the safeguard investigation concerning low ash metallurgical coke, the legal standard adopted by
the Authority was whether or not the domestic industry manufactures a competing grade in
commercial quantities. The competing grades that are not produced in commercial quantities were
excluded.
vii. In the safeguard investigation concerning single mode optical fibre, the Authority held that evidence
is required to demonstrate that like or directly competitive goods are not manufactured by the
domestic industry.
viii. The Authority is required to conduct a detailed grade-wise product examination.
ix. The observation of the Authority that quality concerns, vendor certification and capacity constraints
are not relevant for product exclusion is not legally tenable.
x. If there are clear technical, commercial and production-based distinctions, differences in quality,
vendor certification barriers and production limitation, it cannot be said that the domestically
produced grades and imported grades or “like or directly competitive”.
xi. In the safeguard investigations concerning Low Ash Metallurgical Coke, PVC Suspension Resins
and Single Mode Optical Fibre, the DG granted or examined in detail product exclusion request –
and where the DI did not demonstrate the ability to manufacture, the said product was excluded.
xii. There is no grade-wise or application specific analysis as followed in the previous investigations.
The failure to conduct such an inquiry effectively shifts the burden onto importers and users to
demonstrate why their products should be excluded.
xiii. “likeness” under safeguard law does not demand perfect substitutability – there has to be a
competitive relationship between the imported and domestic products. The domestically produced
products do not offer meaningful competition with several categories of imported grades.
xiv. The DI must provide clear, specific and verifiable evidence to support such a claim for each product
grade.
xv. The burden of proof lies with the domestic industry to prove that it manufactures like or directly
competitive articles.
xvi. Although the word “competitive” implies that what must be examined is potential to compete, there
must be a “direct” competitive relationship between the two products. “Competitive” means the
potential to satisfy the same consumer demand.
xvii. The scope of the PUC is excessively broad and includes several categories of products.
xviii. PUC covers speciality grades, advanced technical variants and application-specific products that
serve niche industrial uses and are also high priced. Indian producers do not offer these products at
all. Therefore, they must be excluded.
xix. In case of inclusion of non-competing products, the volume of imports and injury analysis will be
artificially inflated, thereby skewing the assessment of surge and serious injury.
xx. The DI has failed to establish that the surge in imports are attributable to unforeseen circumstances.
There must be a nexus between surge in imports and unforeseen circumstances.
xxi. All unforeseen circumstances identified by the DI relate to ‘steel’ in general and are not specific to
the PUC. Steel comprises of a vast and diverse basket comprising numerous subcategories and
grades.
xxii. The trade remedy measures were implemented much before the POI. There is no causal link
between the continuing trade remedies and the purported diversion of exports from Korea to India.
xxiii. There is no empirical or quantifiable evidence demonstrating that the measures have resulted in a
redirection of Korean exports specifically to the Indian markets.
xxiv. There is no quantifiable evidence or data such as export trends, redirection patters to clearly link the
expired measures to increased imports into India.
xxv. The unforeseen developments cited by the Petitioners are not specifically linked to the defined PUC
from Korea. Further, several trade protection measures had expired before the POI.
xxvi. The information regarding excess capacity shown in the preliminary findings pertain to crude steel
alone and not the PUC. Overcapacity in the steel sector is not a new or unexpected development. It
has occurred over 10-15 years and has been discussed in multiple forums such as OECD and
international trade bodies.
xxvii. India’s steel demand has been steadily growing.
xxviii. The changes in China’s policies do not pertain to Korea. They are internal economic developments
which are not unforeseen developments. There must be quantifiable data demonstrating that these
developments have directly resulted in increased imports into India.
xxix. Chinese investment in ASEAN would have clearly been foreseen since it was documented for
several years.
xxx. The unfair trade practices by China or ASEAN can be addressed through the CAROTAR Rules
rather than by invoking safeguard investigations.
xxxi. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality on details of adjustment plan. The
adjustment plan is vague and excessively confidential. The proposed adjustments referred to in the
Petition are identical to the adjustments that were undertaken in 2016.
xxxii. In various past investigations, the Authority has declined to recommend the duties on the grounds
that no clear adjustment plan was provided.
xxxiii. Imposition of the safeguard duties will be against public interest.
xxxiv. Public interest must be examined from the perspective of various parties – not just the DI. The has
engaged in unfair market practices – AMNS has filed a user industry questionnaire response even
though it is a part of the DI and has sought exclusion of 13 grades.
xxxv. Specialized grades of the PUC are either not manufactured by the DI or are not approved for usage
by downstream consumers. If there is a disruption of the access to these grades, it would impact
various sectors in India.
xxxvi. US Section 232 Tariffs have not been effective. It has resulted in retaliation from other countries.
xxxvii. The appropriate action is an anti-dumping measure or CVD against China and Vietnam.
xxxviii. There needs to be a global surge to justify imposition of safeguard duties. The surge in the present
case is predominantly occurring from a few countries only and is not a global phenomenon.
xxxix. There is no evidence of price injury – whether in the form of undercutting, suppression, depression.
There is a decline in raw material prices, which has resulted in a decline in domestic prices of the
PUC.
xl. If the domestic selling price has declined more than the cost of sales, it is more likely a result of
internal market dynamics, such as competitive pricing or external factors such as global commodity
trends.
xli. The injury analysis is flawed since the POI includes both quarter 2 and quarter 4 of the financial
year 2023-24, thereby leading to an overlap in the dataset. Therefore, annualization of the data is not
appropriate.
xlii. There is no recent, sudden, sharp or significant increase in imports from Korea.
xliii. There is an increase in sales, production and production capacity of the DI.
xliv. Major decline in profitability is attributable to the increase in interest cost and depreciation.
xlv. The injury to the domestic industry is only on account of imports from China PR and ASEAN only.
xlvi. The decline in prices of the PUC in India is on account of the decline in iron ore prices.
xlvii. In terms of Article 2.27 of the India-Korea CEPA, India must consider excluding Korea from the
application of the measures.
VIII. Nippon Steel Corporation, Nippon Steel Pipe India Private Limited, JFE Steel Corporation, JFE Shoji
Corporation, JFE Shoji India Kobe Steel Ltd., Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Honda Trading
Corporation, Honda Trading Corporation, India Pvt. Ltd., Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Centre
Pvt. Ltd., Nissan Trading Co., ltd., Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited
14. The interested parties made the following submissions:
i. The present proceedings, including the preliminary findings are without legal authority. The Petition
contains numerous deficiencies and fails to provide essential evidence.
ii. NSC and AMNS participated in multiple meetings with Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Steel
regarding the exclusion of specific grades sold to AMNS.
iii. The applicants have made general rebuttals concerning the exclusion requests without substantiating
them with factual or legal basis, concrete evidence or detailed reasoning.
iv. The Authority did not conduct a limited public hearing for determining the scope of the PUC prior
to issuance of the preliminary findings.
v. It has been the consistent practice of the Authority to exclude products that are not like or directly
competitive from the scope of the investigation.
vi. In the safeguard investigation concerning HR coils, sheets and strips, the Authority excluded
products not manufactured by the domestic industry from the scope of the PUC.
vii. In terms of Rule 2(e) of the Safeguard Rules and the Agreement on Safeguards postulate that
safeguard measures may be imposed only on “like or directly competitive” articles.
viii. Likeness is determined by various parameters such as physical and chemical characteristic, product
specifications, pricing, functions and end-uses, end-user requirements, manufacturing process and
technology, distribution and marketing, tariff classification, technical and commercial
substitutability, etc.
ix. Directly competitiveness is assessed on the basis of when the products are interchangeable or offer
alternative ways of satisfying a particular need or taste.
x. In US – Cotton Yarn, the Appellate Body held that a safeguard action will not extend to protecting a
domestic industry that produces unlike products which only have a remote or tenuous competitive
relationship with the imported product.
xi. In the safeguard investigation concerning oxo alcohol, it has noted that even if the end products are
substitutable, this substitutability must not be remote.
xii. In the safeguard investigation concerning Hot Rolled Coils / Sheets / Strips, the Authority excluded
grades of steel that were not manufactured by the domestic industry. Therefore, if the domestic
industry is unable to manufacture any grade, the said grade must be excluded from the PUC.
xiii. The domestic industry must provide evidence demonstrating that it manufactures the like or
competitive article to the imported grades of the PUC.
xiv. Certain imported grades are not manufactured by the domestic industry and are not commercially
and technically substitutable.
xv. The Authority may clarify whether “tinplate” and “Coated Electrogalvanized Steel” are excluded
from the PUC.
xvi. The domestic industry’s acceptance for the exclusion of certain grades must be examined carefully.
xvii. The Petitioner has failed to substantiate how its products are technically and commercially
substitutable with the imported grades. The invoices submitted by the domestic industry does not
substantiate how the invoices filed demonstrate that a particular grade is substitutable with the
grades for which NSC has sought exclusion.
xviii. The exclusion of products based on end-use conditions is unwarranted and burdensome.
xix. The Authority is bound to consider if all of the grades for which exclusion is sought are like or
directly competitive with the domestically produced grades. A blanket refusal to examine the issue
is clearly arbitrary, illegal and erroneous.
xx. The Authority has outrightly rejected lack of customer approval and differences in quality as a
ground for exclusion, without appreciating that the poor-quality products will result in unviability of
the end product.
xxi. Customer approvals will demonstrate whether a product meets the commercial standards required by
end users.
xxii. On the one hand the Authority observes that there is no requirement to examine if each product is
produced by the domestic industry, on the other hand the Authority has selectively noted that the
domestic industry has provided invoices to show sales of certain grades.
xxiii. NSC has provided sufficient technical evidence to substantiate its exclusion request.
xxiv. AMNS has found the grades produced by the domestic industry to be sub-optimal in comparison
with NSC’s products in terms of quality, grades and size mix.
xxv. NSC has developed customized grades for AMNS, which are used to produce patented products.
xxvi. Even if AMNS is committed to being the domestic industry, the Authority is required to examine
the reasons and evidence placed on record by NSC and AMNS seeking exclusion of certain grades.
xxvii. NSC has been playing an active role in contributing to Make in India. NSC has acquired Uttam
Galva Steels Limited, Essar Steel India Limited and has established AMNS, which is constructing
new plants.
xxviii. NSC supplies high quality HR steel to AMNS since 2022. This requirement is expected to increase
in 2025. Majority of NSC’s exports of HR steel are supplied to AMNS as substrates of its
downstream products.
xxix. AMNS has been investing in new projects and expansion of existing facilities.
xxx. Tin free steel and plastic laminated steel fall under the category of tinplate. Therefore, such products
should be excluded from the scope of the PUC.
xxxi. The investigation has been initiated without any evidence of increased imports, serious injury or
threat, causal link and adjustment efforts.
xxxii. The domestic industry has failed to provide injury data for 12 month period prior to the POI to
determine if the increased imports have actually caused serious injury to the domestic industry.
xxxiii. There is no sharp increase in imports across all product categories.
xxxiv. There is no evidence of serious injury and causal link
xxxv. The Authority has not provided the minimum 30 days time to provide the questionnaire response as
stipulated under Rule 6(4) of the Safeguard Rules.
xxxvi. The questionnaire formats were published by the Authority in a belated manner.
xxxvii. The applicants have claimed excess confidentiality in their application thereby preventing the
interested parties from examining the accuracy and adequacy of the information supplied to the
Authority.
xxxviii. The transaction wise import data filed by the applicant is not reliable. The Authority has not
initiated the investigation based on DGCIS/DG System data.
xxxix. The Authority is required to finalise the product scope and decide PCNs before calling for
questionnaire responses.
xl. The scope of the PUC in the Petition is broad. Certain product categories are improperly included
within the scope of the PUC despite there being no sharp surge in imports of those categories.
xli. Analysis of dumping and injury margins may be required to demonstrate causal link and
quantification of the duty.
xlii. As per Rule 2 of the safeguard rules, the domestic industry is defined as only producers of “like or
directly competitive” articles. The products not manufactured by the domestic industry is required to
be excluded from the scope of the PUC.
xliii. The applicant has not demonstrated that it manufactures a “major share” of each distinct product
categories. Not all producers manufacture all product categories, therefore, they cannot constitute
the domestic industry for all product categories.
xliv. There is only a slight increase in imports of CR coils during the POI as compared to the immediately
preceding year. Imports of HR coils have increased gradually throughout the injury period, which
does not demonstrate sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports.
xlv. There is a decline in imports of Coated sheets during the POI as compared to the immediately
preceding year.
xlvi. Even if the requirement of unforeseen development is not mentioned in the domestic legal
framework, the Authority is required to examine it as required under Article XIX of the GATT.
xlvii. Trade remedy measures are not unforeseen developments since they are routinely and regularly
deployed by nations. Further, they are legitimate actions under the WTO Agreements. As per the
WTO data, between 2010 and 2017, there have been 367 anti-dumping and countervailing duty
actions against steel products.
xlviii. Several countries have been exempted from the US Section 232 tariffs.
xlix. The issue of excess capacity has been a chronic and well documented challenge across various
global markets, that has been discussed in numerous industry reports, WTO forums, and
international trade discussions for over a decade. This issue is not unforeseen.
l. China’s three red lines policy is not unforeseen. China’s increased investments in steelmaking
capacity in other countries have occurred for several years.
li. The domestic sales, production and capacity across multiple product categories has grown.
lii. Serious injury is not being suffered by the domestic industry as a whole. The EBITA of other
domestic producers such as Tata Steel (which is also a Member of the ISA) has grown by 10% to
reach INR 31,057 crores at an EBITA margin of 22%. EBITA of AMNS and SAIL during the
financial year 2024 is significant. The decline in EBITA of Tata Steel is less than the loss in
profitability of the domestic industry.
liii. There is no causal link between increased imports and injury to the domestic industry. Although the
imports of colour coated coils and sheets declined, the PBIT per unit has also declined.
liv. PBIT per unit of plate mill plates has improved during the POI, despite the alleged surge in imports.
lv. Coated coils and sheets show an improvement.
lvi. In the case of HR coils, when there was a surge in imports from 2022-23 to 2023-24, the PBIT also
improved.
lvii. Cost of producing steel in India is significantly higher than the rest of the world. Prices of coking
coal has risen to around USD 670 per MT. This is the reason for the decline in profitability of the
domestic industry.
lviii. The domestic industry’s operating cost is high – there is an increase in depreciation cost, interest
cost.
lix. The bulk of the domestic industry’s allegation focuses on Chinese excess capacity, declining
domestic demand. Therefore, the increase in imports is not on account of unforeseen development.
lx. The adjustment plan has been claimed confidential. The adjustment plans provided by the domestic
industry are vague and generalized. The domestic industry has not explained how the imposition of
the 25% duty will facilitate of support their efforts.
lxi. The request for 25% duty rate is not supported by any evidence. The liberalization of 1% each year
does not reflect any clear connection with the industry’s adjustment plans.
lxii. India has a long history of trade remedial measures to address concerns related to imports of steel
products.
lxiii. There are various non-tariff barriers such as BIS regulations and quality control orders on the PUC.
lxiv. A no-objection certificate process exists for certain shipments where specific grades of steel is not
domestically produced. However, this process is expected to be phased out.
lxv. License of various Chinese suppliers have expired in 2023 – only 8 licenses are valid from China till
date.
lxvi. Steel Import Monitoring System (“SIMS”) acts as a mechanism to monitor and regulate steel
imports.
lxvii. There are no critical circumstances that warrant safeguard measures.
lxviii. Contention of the domestic industry that there are low priced imports and excess capacity in Japan,
Korea, ASEAN and China is not supported by any evidence.
lxix. All evidence relied on by the domestic industry pertains only to HRC and not the PUC as a whole.
lxx. Safeguard duty would not be in the public interest at large.
lxxi. There would be irreversible damage on steel using industry nationwide.
lxxii. Safeguard duty would negatively impact the “make in India” initiative.
lxxiii. The India-Japan CEPA creates a partnership through liberalization and facilitation of trade and
investment, and cooperation between the two countries.
lxxiv. The preliminary findings are violative of the principles of natural justice and deviate from the
established legal principles.
lxxv. The Authority must consider all submissions filed by the parties – even those filed after January 22,
2025.
lxxvi. Products can be included within the scope of the PUC only if the “like or directly competitive”
article is manufactured by the domestic industry. The domestic industry has failed to produce
credible evidence to demonstrate that like or directly competitive articles are manufactured.
lxxvii. Categorization of the domestic industry’s product and Japanese mills’ products under the same
Indian Standard is not a valid criterion for determining the “like or directly competitive” articles
test.
lxxviii. In terms of Rule 2(e) of the Safeguard Rules and the Agreement on Safeguards postulate that
safeguard measures may be imposed only on “like or directly competitive” articles.
lxxix. Likeness is determined by various parameters such as physical and chemical characteristic, product
specifications, pricing, functions and end-uses, end-user requirements, manufacturing process and
technology, distribution and marketing, tariff classification, technical and commercial
substitutability, etc.
lxxx. Direct competitiveness is assessed on the basis of when the products are interchangeable or offer
alternative ways of satisfying a particular need or taste.
lxxxvi. “like articles” are those that are identical or alike in all respect. The legal standard explained in US –
Washers is not applicable since the product mix is different in the present case. Steel products have
varied applications and different characteristics, which affect end-usage. Therefore, the “like article”
standard in steel investigations must be applied in such a manner that if the domestic industry does
not manufacture identical or perfect substitutes, they must be excluded.
lxxxvii. The preference of each and every customer may not be relevant to establish direct competition.
Users are unable to use the domestic industry’s goods since they do not meet the technical
requirements of the users.
lxxxviii. There is no evidence of unforeseen circumstances. As per Argentina – Footwear, the circumstances
described must be unexpected.
lxxxix. Between 2010 and 2017, there have been 367 different anti-dumping and CVD actions against
various steel products. Trade remedy measures cannot be considered to be unforeseen.
xc. Excess capacity is not an unforeseen development since this has been occurring for a very long time
and has been discussed in various trade forums, WTO, and highlighted in several reports. There was
ample opportunity for the domestic industry to adapt to the changing scenario.
xci. Increase in Chinese investments has gradually occurred over several years on account of interplay
of economic policies, market dynamics and global investment.
xcii. Merely identifying India’s obligations under the GATT does not satisfy the requirement of
demonstrating that imports are on account of unforeseen developments.
xciii. All evidence regarding threat of serious injury is with regard to China alone. The Petitioners cannot
attribute the declining prices of HR steel from China to all other sources of HR products.
xciv. China being the world’s largest steel producer, has been excluded from the US market – this is the
main reason for the surge in imports.
IX. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Isgec Heavy Engineering Limited, LG Electronics India Private Limited,
Metal One Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and Metal One, Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited, Manaksia
a. The preliminary findings conflate “serious injury” and threat of serious injury” with “critical
circumstances. There are no indicators to support the existence of critical circumstances as the
market share of the domestic industry has not fallen sharply.
b. The Authority, in not providing the basis for calculation of the reference price has committed a
grave violation of natural justice. In the past, the Authority has provided a valid basis for arriving at
a particular rate of duty.
c. The high return on capital employed of 22% for calculation of NIP to arrive at the reference price is
inappropriate.
d. The Petitioner has claimed excess confidentiality – various parameters such as details of production,
productivity, total PBIT and other indicators have been kept confidential in the Petition. This has
affected the ability of the respondents to respond to respond to the claims of the DI.
e. The adjustment plan presented by the domestic industry is vague and generic. It lacks the requisite
information and details to be considered adequate.
f. There is insufficient evidence regarding recent, sudden and sharp increase in imports caused by
unforeseen developments, which has a causal link to a serious injury or threat of serious injury.
g. The excess capacity was not unforeseen. This was known to India and it was foreseeable at the time
of undertaking obligations.
h. The three red lines policy does not have a proximate cause and effect relationship with the increase
in imports.
i. Trade remedy measures were reasonably foreseeable. The Authority’s own admission is that such a
situation existed prior to 2019.
j. There were high number of trade remedy measures while India was undertaking GATT obligations.
k. Overcapacity in Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are not unforeseen.
l. The imposition of the safeguard measures would increase the price of Appliances by 4% and
industrial products by 10-15%.
m. The applicants have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the domestic industry is making
efforts to adjust to the increase in imports.
n. While responding to the exclusion requests, the applicants do not identify for which of the specific
grades they produce domestic like article or directly competitive article and for which they do not.
The applicant’s response is vague.
o. The base year, i.e., FY 2021-22 was characterized by abnormal market dynamics. Therefore, an
assessment of injury on the basis of this base year would lead to a distorted analysis.
p. The relevant period for determining whether the imports were unforeseen is 2009 since this was the
year when India entered into free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea.
q. The increase in imports is attributable to the FTAs signed by India with Japan, South Korea and
ASEAN countries. This cannot be regarded as obligations under the GATT.
r. The reliance of the applicants on the prices in May 2025 is inappropriate since the POI is October
2023 to September 2024. Data that is not within this POI should not be relied upon. The US changes
to the Section 232 are outside the POI.
s. The developing country exemption must be examined for each product category individually. Nepal
should not be exempt from the application of the measure.
X. Hyundai Motor India Limited and Hyundai Steel Company, GS Global Corp, The China Iron and Steel
Association (CISA), Hoa Sen Group, Hyosung TNC Corporation, Hyundai Corporation, Indian Pipe
Manufacturers Association, Kia India Private Limited, Samsung C&T Corporation, Steel Users
Federation of India (SUFI), Vietnam Steel Association
15. The interested parties made the following submissions:
i. The exclusions to the PUC granted by the Authority cover 22 grades, however, the DI’s letters state
that 50 line items have been agreed for exclusion.
ii. Hyundai Steel has been a consistent and reliable supplier to India’s auto sector, accounting for
approximately 52% of the country’s imported automotive steel.
iii. Hyundai is working on localization in alignment with India’s Make in India initiative.
iv. High strength steel, exterior-grades CR/GA sheets demand stringent standards, which are not met by
the domestic producers.
v. There is a 30% supply gap in GA outer panels across Indian OEMs in 2025. BIS alternatives do not
meet the requirements. The domestic industry does not have end user approval.
vi. HR Steel, API Certified Plates, High-Carbon & Quenched and Tempered (QT) steel and Wind
Tower and Shipbuilding plates are required to be excluded.
vii. It should be clarified whether the excluded products have been excluded from the computation of
the total import volumes.
viii. The 5 product categories each have different technical characteristics, end-uses, market dynamics
and pricing structures. These products are not interchangeable with one another. These 5 products
should be investigated in separate investigations.
ix. It is unclear how the DI has segregated the data across the 5 categories of steel and has provided no
explanation or clarification.
x. The adjustment plan provided by the domestic industry is not sufficiently detailed, it is generic and
vague. The non-confidential version does not disclose sufficient information. Each participating
applicant company is required to submit a separate adjustment plan.
xi. In the safeguard investigations concerning Phthalic Anhydride, Cold Rolled Flat Products of
Stainless Steel of 400 Series, Non-Alloyed Ingots of Unwrought Aluminium and Flexible Slabstock
Polyol, the Authority did not recommend the imposition of the duties where there was an
insufficient adjustment plan.
xii. In past safeguard investigations, the Authority issues a separate questionnaire for domestic
producers after initiation of the investigation. However, in the present investigation, the Authority
has only issued a questionnaire for “other domestic producers”.
xiii. AMNS India and AMNS Khopoli have filed user questionnaire responses despite being constituents
of the domestic industry since they rely on Nippon Steel Trading Corporation for certain grades of
steel as the domestic producers are unable to meet their quality and quantity requirements, pricing,
etc.
xiv. The Authority should exclude AMNS India and AMNS Khopoli and reexamine the standing of the
domestic industry. The Authority is also required to exclude AMNS India and AMNS Khopoli from
the injury analysis.
xv. The present investigation must be terminated and re-examined after AMNS India and AMNS
Khopoli are excluded from the domestic industry.
xvi. The information provided in the application does not conform to Trade Notice No. 10/2018 since
various data points and information has been claimed as confidential. As there are multiple applicant
companies, certain categories of the economic data must be disclosed on an aggregated basis for all
companies.
xvii. There is a requirement to hold consultations prior to taking a preliminary of final safeguard measure.
xviii. The investigation must be terminated since the Petitioner has agreed to the exclusion of various
product categories. Therefore, the data which formed the basis for initiation of the investigation, is
no longer relevant, thereby making the whole initiation of the investigation void.
xix. Country-wise import summary has not been provided in the application.
xx. The data in the Petition and the data in the preliminary findings has been changed. If there is an
update of the data, the same has not been circulated to the parties. Therefore, the principles of
natural justice of the interested parties have been violated.
xxi. The interested parties have not been provided an adequate opportunity to provide comments on the
updated data submitted by the domestic industry.
xxii. The domestic industry is not suffering from serious injury. The legal standard for “serious” injury is
higher than the standard for “material injury”. Various parameters of the domestic industry have
shown an improvement, such as sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits, losses
and employment.
xxiii. The production of the PUC has been consistent. The capacity utilization of HR steel increased, but
the capacity utilization for HR Plates, CR steel, corrosion resistant steel and colour coated steel
remained high, which indicates that the DI is operating at a high level of efficiency.
xxiv. The Preliminary Finding lacks detailed information regarding the injury suffered by each petitioner
individually.
xxv. AMNS India and JSW Steel have plans of expanding their operations and making investments.
These developments further demonstrate that the petitioners are in a strong position.
xxvi. In Non-Alloyed Ingots of Unwrought Aluminium, Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of
400 series and Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn, the Authority has held that there is no injury on
account of high levels of capacity utilization, increased employment, consistent growth in
production and sales figures.
xxvii. The currently established reference prices for exemption from duty in the case of CR Steel does not
align with the cost-plus margin structure of conversion from HR to CR steel. The conversion cost
from HR to CR steel is not appropriately captured in the reference prices.
xxviii. The imposition of the duties is not in public interest since steel has wide range of applications across
industries. The safeguard duties will reduce competition of the domestic steel producers, increase
cost and prices, reduce the profit margin of small mills, increase the cost of construction,
automotive, manufacturing and infrastructure.
xxix. The duties will affect the Make in India initiative.
xxx. The objective of safeguard duty is to protect the domestic industry from undue advantages of
foreign exporters on account of unforeseen developments and to ensure a healthy level playing field
for domestic producers. Safeguards should not be used to give undue advantage to domestic
producers.
xxxi. The customs EDI system does not presently accommodate reference price-linked safeguard duty
assessment.
xxxii. There is an upward price movement from January 2025. The domestic producers have begun
increasing their prices. Suppliers such as POSCO Maharashtra has communicated a demand to
compensate users for the financial impact of the safeguard duty.
xxxiii. The adjustment plan provided in the application is vague and insufficient. In past investigations, the
Authority has declined to recommend the measures when the adjustment plan was not appropriate.
XI. Assam Roofing Ltd.
16. The interested party made the following submissions
a. The calculation of the 3% threshold for exclusion of developing countries must be done separately
for each product category. The 3% threshold for the PUC as a whole is met by China and Vietnam.
However, the share of HR Coils of Nepal can never cross 3% since Nepal primarily exports coated
steel products.
b. The benchmark duty determined for Metallic Coated Steel Coils and Sheets and Colour Coated
Coils and Sheets must be significantly higher than for CR Coils to account for value additions
involved from the base metal/raw material stage.
c. Nepal should not be exempt from the application of the duty for Metallic Coated Steel Coils and
Sheets and Colour Coated Coils and Sheets. Nepal’s share is over 50% for Aluminium Zinc Coated
Products, around 6-7% for Pre-Painted/Plastic Coated Sheets and 85% for Galvanized Sheets.
d. Safeguard Duty on Metallic Coated Steel Coils and Sheets and Colour Coated Coils and Sheets must
be higher than the duty for HR and CR Coils.
XII. Dongkuk CM, Korea and Dongkuk Steel India Pvt. Ltd.
17. The interested party made the following submissions
a. Pre-painted aluminium zinc alloy metallic coated steel above 1.3 mm thickness may be excluded
since the DI is unable to produce the same with requisite quality. JSW Steel Limited is the only
domestic producer capable of manufacturing the product upto thickness of 1.5mm. The demand for
this product is only 6,000 MT.
b. Hot Dip Aluminium Zinc Alloy Metallic Coated Steel above 1.5 mm thickness cannot be produced
by the DI in required quality and quantity. Indian users prefer Korean-made products. The demand
for this product is 8,000 MT.
c. Laminated Galvanized Steel is not manufactured by the DI. The DI has already agreed for the
exclusion of Laminated Electrogalvanized Steel from the investigation; there is no reason for not
excluding Laminated Galvanized Steel from the PUC.
d. Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel is imported based on customer specific customizations. The DI is
unable to deliver the required quality and specifications such as design and pattern.
e. The mere fact that the DI sells products covered under the same Indian Standards does not
demonstrate that such goods are of the same quality, consistency or specifications as the imported
grades.
f. There would be no injury caused to the DI since the annual consumption of the specialized products
is very low. In US – Lamb, the Appellate Body held that the standard of “serious injury” in the
Agreement on Safeguards is higher than “material injury” in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
g. In Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, the Panel noted that while examining “directly competitive or
substitutable”, an examination of the physical characteristics and tariff classification must be done in
the marketplace context.
h. The DI has stated that they agree for the exclusion of 50 line items, but the Authority has excluded
only 22 product categories.
i. In past safeguard investigations, the Authority has declined to recommend duties where the
economic parameters of the domestic industry has shown improvement.
j. The production and sales data of the domestic industry has improved.
k. The capacity utilization is at 83%, which demonstrates good production activities.
l. Employment levels are a good indicator for injury.
m. AMNS and JSW are undertaking capacity expansions which suggests favourable market
environment.
n. There is no basis for fixing the Minimum Export Price; for Cold Rolled Products, the Minimum
Export Price is disproportionately high compared to HR, and low compared to coated steel products.
o. There is no injury from Korea since import volumes from Korea have only modestly increased and
then declined compared to other countries.
XIII. CSCI Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
18. The interested party made the following submissions
a. Cold Rolled Full Hard Silicon Electrical Steel used in the production of CRNO may be excluded
from the PUC. Only JSW Steel has manufactured CRFH, however, the same is not capable of
producing CRNO as per the applicable BIS standard.
b. Cold Rolled Full Hardened Electrical Strips conforming to IS 18316 of 2023 is excluded from the
scope of the investigation. CSCI has obtained a BIS license for importing this product.
c. In the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel
from China PR, CRFH used for manufacturing CRNO was excluded from the PUC.
d. CRFH imported by CSCI is not a ‘like article’ of Cold Rolled Steel and is not interchangeable or
substitutable with the domestically produced product.
e. JSW has procured CRFH from JSW. However, the goods do not match the necessary standards as
per BIS 648:2022. Multiple trial by JSW have rejection rates from 4.86% to 100%. There was 100%
rejection of AMNS’ product.
XIV. Maruti Suzuki
19. The interested party made the following submissions
a. Not all steel categories experienced a sharp increase in imports.
b. Domestic steel prices have shown an upward trajectory, while international prices have declined,
suggesting that the DI has leveraged the safeguard duty to increase prices, causing financial strain on
downstream sectors.
c. Non-availability and capacity constraints of Indian steel mills has created supply shortages, affecting
production schedules and operational efficiency.
d. Maruti Suzuki is a major exporter of vehicles and export the vehicles to Japan and EU. There is a
requirement to maintain high quality standards. Any failure in global markets may adversely impact the
reputation of Indian products.
XV. NRB Bearings
20. The interested party made the following submissions
a. Imported products are not manufactured in India. NOC has been issued by the Ministry of Steel for
each consignment.
XVI. Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Huttenweke
21. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. The applicant’s arguments such as excess steel producing capacity, implementation of trade remedy
measures by other countries and the regional market shifts in ASEAN do not constitute evidence of
“surge in imports” resulting from “unforeseen developments”.
b. The claim of serious injury is not substantiated since there is a general positive trend in key
performance metrics such as production volumes and sales.
c. Other domestic producers such as Tata Steel Ltd. have demonstrated stable or improved
performance during the relevant period.
d. The alternative causes of injury have not been sufficiently examined or addressed by the Authority.
e. The Authority has failed to conduct a detailed and objective analysis of critical factors for assessing
whether the imported products are “like or directly competitive”.
f. In the safeguard investigation concerning oxo alcohols, the Authority held that overlapping end use
is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion to determine whether products are “like or directly
competitive”.
g. There is a legal requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that it manufactures each and every
grade of the imported product with identical specifications and must meet the entire domestic
demand.
h. The applicant has agreed to the exclusion of 17 product categories even though it manufactures
products that are comparable and with overlapping end-uses.
i. In the safeguard investigation concerning HR coils/sheets/strips, certain products were excluded
since the domestic industry failed to provide evidence of domestic production of the relevant goods.
j. Although the DI has supplied invoices of sample sales of certain grades of steel, the findings are
silent on how these grades are “like” or “directly competitive” with the specific product grades
supplied by Dillinger.
k. In Basudev Dutta v. State of Bengal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that every administrative or
quasi-judicial order must contain reasons. However, the reasons for not granting Dillinger’s
exclusion request has not been recorded in the preliminary findings.
l. The five categories of the PUC each differ in terms of manufacturing process, technical
specifications, end-use applications, market dynamics and customer segments. They are neither
technically nor commercially interchangeable. The Authority must determine the standing for each
product category separately.
m. AMNS India and AMNS Khopoli have opposed the petition and requested for product exclusion.
The Authority should assess the standing of the domestic industry on the basis of their opposition to
the petition.
n. Major producer of steel in India, Tata Steel Limited, is not a part of the petition.
o. Tariff concessions are not unforeseen since they are negotiated and agreed upon by WTO Members
including India, with full knowledge of implications.
p. Global overcapacity is a longstanding issue that has been discussed widely in forums such as the
WTO and OECD.
q. There is no surge in imports from the EU.
r. Imports from EU are not a cause of injury to the domestic industry. The true cause of injury is
imports from a few specific countries.
s. The EU may be excluded from the application of the measure.
t. Sales performance of the DI shows strong growth. The DI’s sales have grown by 40%.
u. Production capacity increased by 13%, actual production increased by 17% and capacity utilization
increased by 90%.
v. Decline in profitability is not attributable to imports, but is on account of an increase in interest
costs, particularly those incurred by JSW in the acquisition of the BPSL group.
w. There is no price undercutting from the EU.
x. Injury is not widespread or global. The main sources of injury are China and certain ASEAN
countries.
y. Depreciation and interest cost has increased substantially. However, there is no evidence of capacity
expansion. This clearly indicates that the increase in finance cost is due to internal financial
decisions and unrelated to any alleged surge in imports.
XVII. NLMK Group and Tay Nam Steel Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd.
22. The interested party made the following submissions
i. The POI is October 2023 to September 2024, but the DI has not provided injury information for the
corresponding periods for the previous years.
ii. The DI has used different sets of data at different junctures. At some places, the DI has compared
the data during the POI with the data for the previous three financial years. At other points, the DI
has compared the annualized data in the first six months.
iii. There is no uniform methodology for carrying out different analysis. The injury period has been
defined as 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and the POI. The DI must have provided the injury analysis
for all periods uniformly.
iv. The time of 3 to 7 minutes allocated for each speaker in the oral hearing is inadequate and a
violation of natural justice.
v. The DI made a presentation during the oral hearing, which was not circulated prior to or at the time
of the hearing, hence violating the principles of natural justice of the respondents.
vi. As per the trade notices issued by the Authority, all information to be presented during the oral
hearing must be circulated to all parties in advance.
vii. The Authority has not established the existence of critical circumstances for the imposition of the
duty through facts and the applicable legal standard.
viii. For the imposition of a safeguard measure, there is a requirement to examine unforeseen
circumstances. India has consistently applied this test in previous safeguard investigations in line
with its obligations under the GATT.
ix. Protectionist measures by other jurisdictions have been widely deliberated in OECD forums, G20
communiques, and WTO Trade Policy Reviews. Steel has been a target of trade protection measures
since the early 2000s.
x. Excess steelmaking capacity has been a persistent and structural feature for over a decade, which
has been addressed in multilateral forums.
xi. China’s three red lines’ policy is not an unforeseen trade event, but policy recalibration that should
be expected in a dynamic global economy.
xii. The increase in Chinese investments in ASEAN is well documented.
xiii. There is no causal link between the unforeseen development and the surge in imports. The surge in
imports must be shown to be a direct and proximate consequence of the cited developments and not
merely correlated with them.
xiv. There is no granular trade flow analysis, the DI’s price fluctuations, supply gaps or cost
competitiveness has not been examined.
xv. Steel demand in India is strong and growing, suggesting that import increases may be demand-
driven and not supply-push.
xvi. India has numerous trade remedy measures against steel products.
xvii. The Authority has not demonstrated that the increase in imports is an effect of obligations under the
GATT. It has not been demonstrated how the obligations undertaken by India such as bound tariff
reductions are responsible for the increase in imports.
xviii. Injury analysis based on heterogenous product group is impermissible under WTO and Indian law.
xix. Each category of the PUC is distinct and are not like or directly competitive with one another. In
Argentina – Footwear, the Appellate Body held that the injury analysis must be reasoned and
explained when the product scope incudes diverse and dissimilar products.
xx. The applicant has provided different data for different parameters such as production, capacity
utilization, sales, inventory, profitability and market share, each covering different reference
periods. This inconsistent approach is violative of Rule 5 of the Safeguard Rules and Article 4.2(a)
of the Agreement on Safeguards.
xxi. Various pieces of information provided in the Petition is claimed confidential, which is contrary to
trade notice no 10/2018 and impacts the ability of the other interested parties to comment on the
Petition.
xxii. There is no explanation provided as to why certain pieces of information have been claimed as
confidential.
xxiii. In Reliance v. Designated Authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not open to the
Authority to withhold information without proper confidentiality claim being made.
xxiv. Non-confidential summaries must comply with the requirements of Rule 7(5) and Trade Notice
10/2018, failing which the Authority must disregard such information.
xxv. Rejection of exclusion requests is arbitrary and not legitimate. The preliminary findings do not
provide an analysis or explanation for the reasons for rejecting the exclusion requests.
xxvi. The Authority’s assertion that the applicant is not required to demonstrate production of like grades
or capability to supply meaningful volumes contradicts established WTO jurisprudence.
xxvii. Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires all findings to be supported by reasons.
xxviii. The domestic industry has made broad and unsubstantiated assertions of capacity and capability.
The respondents’ detailed technical information demonstrating product-specific inapplicability of
domestic supply have been brushed aside.
xxix. Applying uniform duty for all five categories of products would distort trade and penalize niche,
high-value or non-substitutable imports.
xxx. The analysis of the authority must further be disaggregated into more granular product categories
considering price bands, international HS codes, industry standards and end-user segments.
xxxi. The adjustment plan submitted by the domestic industry is overly generic, lacking in specificity and
fails to offer any credible or substantive road map.
xxxii. The adjustment plan is a reproduction of the plans previously submitted by JSW and SAIL in earlier
safeguard investigations. This shows that no new efforts are being made to enable the domestic
industry to adjust to imports.
xxxiii. The preliminary findings ignore the observations of the WTO Panel in DS518. There is no specific
evidence regarding unforeseen developments; there is no non-attribution analysis; no detailed
reasons are provided for rejection of exclusion requests; the increase in imports is not transparently
analyzed; numerous exclusion requests have been rejected on generic grounds.
xxxiv. The information regarding unforeseen developments must be specific to the PUC and not limited to
crude steel alone.
xxxv. There is no explanation regarding the timing of the unforeseen developments and how they led to
the alleged recent serious injury to the domestic industry.
xxxvi. The domestic industry has not provided an explanation as to how the increase in imports could be a
post-COVID recovery.
xxxvii. Futuristic probabilities cannot be termed as unforeseen developments.
xxxviii. The increase in imports is not sudden, but rather gradually and consistently.
xxxix. Not all categories of the PUC have shown an increase in imports. The increase in imports of CR
Coils and Sheets and Colour Coated steel are minimal.
xl. There is no evidence of critical circumstances that justify a 12% duty.
xli. The applicant’s plea to disqualify the submissions of GTRI should be summarily rejected since all
parties must be given an equal opportunity to represent their interests.
xlii. The Authority is required to conduct an objective and transparent investigation into the likeness and
competitiveness of products.
xliii. Each exclusion request filed by all respondents must be evaluated independently, based on objective
technical evidence and actual substitutability in commercial terms not based on arbitrary invoice
references or unsupported.
xliv. The different applicant companies do not produce a homogenous or directly competitive product
base. Therefore, clubbing their data together for injury analysis is legally untenable.
xlv. If exclusion requests have to be rejected, economic and technical comparability of the products must
be demonstrated.
xlvi. Common-grade HR coils and automotive grade-CR coils cannot be lumped together for the purpose
of injury assessment.
xlvii. On account of the conflict of interest of AMNS and AMNS Khopoli, the Authority may hold that
these parties do not constitute the DI.
XVIII. Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers
23. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. 80% of the steel used by the industry is locally produced and the industry is fully committed
towards localization.
b. Safeguard duty has increased the prices of domestic steel, whereas the global prices of steel.
c. The increase in prices will increase the price for vehicle manufacturers, which would affect pricing,
production planning and long-term investment decisions.
d. The domestic steel industry is facing supply-side challenges. To ensure that there is no disruption in
manufacturing, the availability of steel is essential.
XIX. Japan Iron and Steel Federation
24. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. Certain grades imported from Japan are required to be excluded.
b. The automobile industry would face critical risks and difficulty in continuing their operation. This
would disrupt supply chains and damage sound, and smooth operations of downstream users require
high quality steel from Japan.
c. The measure would impact the Make in India initiative. Japan has been investing large amount of
capital, technology and resources in India, which contributes to the Make in India policy.
d. The bilateral relationship between India and Japan will be affected by the imposition of the measure.
XX. Federation Association of Maharashtra
25. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. The PUC comprises of 5 different product categories in terms of raw materials, production process,
supply-demand dynamics and end use. Alloys and non-alloys of these products are also different.
b. A separate safeguard duty is needed for each of the 5 product categories.
c. Separate PCNs is required for alloy steel and non-alloy steels.
d. The source of the import data in the Petition is not disclosed. There are large variations in the
quantities reported by different sources.
e. The base year of 2021-22 was affected by COVID. The lockdowns were imposed till March 2022.
The increase in imports during the POI is a result of post-COVID recovery.
f. There is no sure in imports after accounting for the abnormality of demand during the COVID years.
g. The value-added products (other than HRC) have a less than 5% share in total imports other than
2023-24.
h. Imported quantities include a large quantity of plates (API plates), which are imported under the
DFIA scheme. Import of API plates for export of LSAW pipes due to better quality and price is
done against advance license. LSAW pipe makers imported about 165,712 MT of plates in FY 23-
24 and about 210,426 MT in FY 24-25. Almost all API plates are for export of pipes.
i. Increase in imports during 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (H1) is due to increased imported
quantity from Vietnam and imports by AMNS. There is already an AD investigation against
Vietnam. AMNS imported 244,725 MT of HRC in 2023-24 and 681,016 MT in the first 9 months of
2024-25.
j. The Government of India has established mandatory BIS registration for almost all Chinese Steel
Mills.
k. Major imports of CR coils are from South Korea.
l. The EBIDTA of the applicant companies and Tata Steel Limited is very high, which is suggestive of
high profits. the combined EBITDA of the applicant companies and Tata exceeds three lakh crore
rupees.
m. The main reason for high profitability of Indian Mills is the built in subsidy received from the
Government of India in terms of pricing of iron ore.
n. Developing countries with less than 3% import share such as Indonesia may be excluded.
o. Imposition of safeguard duties will significantly impact the industry and economy. These products
are regulated through QCOs, SIMS and NOC process, which already create uncertainty in imports.
p. The PUC is used in a wide range of industries. The duties will reduce domestic competition.
q. Imposing safeguard duties against steel will increase the prices, resulting in high construction costs
and substantial damages to the broader economy, including inflation.
r. Various infrastructure projects such as Jal Jeevan Mission and Har Ghar Jal could face delays.
s. Make in India cannot succeed without globally competitive steel prices.
XXI. Federation of Kutch Industries Associations
26. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. The association has entered into an agreement with PA Chamber, Pennsylvania, USA for promoting
the investment from their region to Gujarat.
b. 11 lakh crore rupees is the budgetary allocation for infrastructure.
c. India has a very low per capita steel consumption compared to other global major economies. The
industry has ramped up capacity to nearly 170 MMT.
d. The safeguard measures will affect all pipe manufactures in India. There is a need to balance the
interest and competitiveness of downstream industries.
e. High input costs could slow down the pace of infrastructure development and industrial growth.
f. Flat steel imports are a negligible part of domestic consumption (less than 5%). Import of API grade
steel is negligible against the total import of flat steel product.
g. The Indian steel industry is suffering injury on account of lower worldwide demand.
h. FTA countries like Japan and Korea supply quality steel.
i. The domestic industry has not been able to supply sufficient quantity of API grade steel in a
reasonable period of time.
j. AMNS, Bao, POSCO and Hyundai are large importers of steel.
k. Safeguard duty of 25% with basic customs duties will increase the total payable duties to 32.5%,
whereas the pipe attracts a custom duty of 10%.
l. BIS, DMI&SP by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and local content policy already
discourage imports.
XXII. Metal & Stainless-Steel Merchants Association
27. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. The POI is too short to draw a fair conclusion given the abnormal demand fluctuations during and
post-COVID.
b. India has been a net exporter of steel for the last four years except 2023-24.
c. India’s steel import volumes play a vital role in matching the robust demand for steel in the country.
A sudden change in policy could play a vital role in matching the robust demand for steel in the
country.
d. The rise in steel prices due to limited number of BIS certified manufacturers should also be
considered in the investigation since this scheme has increased the prices of the goods.
e. Flat steel products are critical to India’s economy. 60% of India’s production is controlled by just
five firms, whereas numerous small businesses depend on affordable flat steel to remain
competitive.
f. China has withdrawn the 13% rebate on steel since April 2021.
g. Large amounts of steel are being imported duty free from Japan under the FTA.
h. The Indian government has already protected Indian firms through measures such as tariffs from
7.5% to 12.5%. Higher duties of 15% on stainless steel pipes to discourage imports but also rise
costs for users.
i. To counter cheaper imports, India imposes anti-dumping duties from USD 246 to 307 on stainless
steel pipes from Vietnam and Thailand.
j. SIMS mandates importer registration, however, due to procedural delays, the supply chains are
affected.
k. Specialized products should be excluded from the investigation.
XXIII. Taiwan Steel & Iron Industries Association
28. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. Taiwan may be excluded from the measure since its share in the total imports of the PUC into India
has been below 3%.
b. Taiwan may be considered as a developing country since it has acceded to WTO as a developing
country since 2002. Taiwan is a member of the Asian Group of Developing Countries. Taiwan has
been consistently classified as a developing country by the UN and in the 2023 and 2024 reports of
the World Economic Situation and Prospects.
c. Imports from South Korea, China and Japan are the predominant cause of import surge, accounting
for 80% of total imports into India.
d. India may adopt a country-specific tariff quota as an effective measure instead of a duty.
XXIV. Hyundai Transys Lear, Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., HIS Automotives Pvt. Ltd., HL Mando
Anand India Pvt. Ltd., Daeseong India Automotive Pvt. Ltd.,
29. The interested parties made the following submissions:
a. The imposition of the duties will significantly raise the cost of raw materials, making them
uncompetitive and less viable when compared to the finished products.
b. Downstream users will be under additional financial burden.
c. There is a risk of factory shutdown if the safeguard duty is imposed as the downstream users’
operation could become unfeasible.
d. The measure could cause loss of jobs.
XXV. Construction Federation of India
30. The interested party made the following submissions:
a. A balance must be struck between protecting the domestic industry and meeting the critical needs of
infrastructure projects. There is a need for sustainable and transparent supply chain.
b. Domestic steel prices remain significantly higher than international benchmarks despite decline in
raw material costs.
c. From March 2022 to July 2024, the cost of raw material (iron ore and coking coal) dropped by INR
30,146 per MT, yet the domestic steel prices declined by only INR 18,000.
d. There is limited competition in the steel supply since 60-70% of India’s steel production is
concentrated among 5 to 6 manufacturers, which limits competition and creates supply constraints.
e. Government tenders link the steel price variations to wholesale price index, which moves slowly.
Construction companies lose INR 4,000 to 8,000 per MT, which amounts to a loss of INR 30,000 to
60,000 crores annually.
f. The safeguard duties will increase the prices, impacting construction costs. Steel manufacturers
enjoyed a significant profit margin due to previous protective measures.
g. There are several tariff and non-tariff barriers to steel imports, which affects infrastructure projects,
such as QCOs, SIMS, high tariffs, limited alternatives, export-oriented manufacturers. These lead to
higher costs and impact supply chains, which could result in increased project costs and delays in
urban and rural infrastructure.
h. India’s per capita steel consumption is 83kg, which is far below global average. The target should be
160 kg per person by 2030. For this, steel availability must increase.
i. The domestic industry’s production is insufficient to meet the rising demand of 230 MMT by 2030.
j. The government must ease non-tariff barriers, streamline certification process, revise price variation
mechanisms, establish a steel price stabilization fund, encourage long-term contracts between steel
suppliers and infrastructure developers, promote competition in steel supply, streamline the import
monitoring system, invest in domestic production, foster public private partnerships, facilitate
balanced growth and research and development and international collaboration.
k. The MOOWR scheme must provide for an exemption to QCOs similar to the advance authorisation
program.
D. THE PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE
31. 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.
32. In terms of paragraph 4 of the initiation notice1
, 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
33. 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
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.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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.
34. 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. Interested parties submitted that the definition of
the PUC is overly broad since it comprises of five different categories of products that are not inter-se substitutable,
meaning that they are neither like nor directly competitive with one another. Interested parties further submitted that
each of these five different product categories exhibit different trends in terms of import volumes and injury to the
domestic industry, therefore, the five product categories must be investigated separately.
35. The domestic industry submitted that neither the Agreement on Safeguards, nor the domestic laws define the term
“product under consideration”. The domestic industry relies on the WTO Panel Report of Dominican Republic –
Safeguard Measures to contend that the Agreement on Safeguards does not govern the selection, description, analysis
and determination of the PUC, and that the Agreement on Safeguards does not impose an obligation with respect to
the definition or scope of the PUC.2 The domestic industry also relies on EU – Safeguard Measures on Steel (Turkey)3
to submit that in the underlying investigation therein, the EU had selected 26 different “product categories” as the
PUC, even though they are not inter-se substitutable. The Panel held that there were no inconsistencies in the wide
definition of the PUC adopted by the EU.
36. The Authority notes the observations of the WTO Panel in Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures, and EU –
Safeguard Measures on Steel (Turkey). Particularly, the Authority takes note of the underlying investigation
undertaken by the European Commission, where the scope of the PUC comprised of 26 distinct product categories that
were not substitutable with one another. Consistent with this well well-established international legal principle in
safeguard investigations, the Authority notes that there is no bar in including multiple different product categories
within the scope of a single PUC definition in a safeguard investigation. The Authority further notes that neither the
Act, nor the Safeguard Rules stipulate that the PUC must be defined in a manner that all product categories of the
PUC must be substitutable with one another.
37. The Authority recognizes 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. The Authority notes that this would address the concerns of certain
interested parties regarding the alleged different trends exhibited by different categories of the PUC.
Product exclusion requests
38. The Authority received requests from several interested parties for exclusion of certain grades from the scope of the
PUC, a brief summary of which is given below:
a) Regarding the appropriate legal standard for consideration of exclusion requests, the interested parties
submitted that the Agreement on Safeguards, read with the Act and the Rules stipulate that the safeguard
measure may be imposed on the imports of a product that is “like” or “directly competitive” with the
products manufactured by the domestic industry. It was submitted that in terms of Rule 2(e) of the Safeguard
Rules, “like articles” refers to products that are identical or alike in all respects. It was submitted that
assessment of whether two products are like articles entails an examination of the physical or chemical
characteristics, product specifications, pricing, functions and end-uses, user requirements, user perception,
manufacturing process and technology, distribution and marketing, tariff classification, technical and
commercial substitutability and domestic production.
b) Regarding “directly competitive articles”, the other interested parties submitted that domestically produced
products and imported products may be regarded as directly competitive if the two offer alternative ways of
satisfying a particular need or taste. The other interested parties further submitted that the WTO Appellate
Body in US – Cotton Yarn recognized the exclusion of products for having only a tenuous competitive
relation with the product produced by a domestic industry. The other interested parties further submitted that
in past safeguard investigations, the Authority excluded products from the scope of the PUC if it was
demonstrated that the domestic industry did not manufacture the “like or directly competitive article”.
c) The other interested parties further submitted that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate
that it manufactures like or directly competitive articles with reference tothe imported PUC. Further, the
interested parties stated that the invoices submitted by the domestic industry do not discharge their burden of
proof.
39. The domestic industry submitted as follows:
a) As per WTO Panel Report of US – Safeguard Measures on Washers domestically produced products that are
not perfect substitutes for the imported products may still be regarded as “like articles” even if the two do not
share identical characteristics, as long as a competitive relationship exists between the two products.
b) In US – Cotton Yarn, it was held that “directly competitive” refers to the capacity of two products to compete
with one another, and not the actual competition between the two products in the market. The domestic
industry further submitted that the assessment of direct competitiveness is of a more general and objective
nature, without taking into account the factors specific to each and every producer or consumer.
c) The burden of proof lies with the other interested parties to demonstrate that the domestic industry has not
supplied a like or directly competitive article of the imported grade. The burden of proof must be satisfied
with respect to each grade for which a product exclusion is sought.
d) Almost all interested parties that have requested for the exclusion of certain grades from the scope of the
PUC, have done so without provide any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate their claims. The t interested
parties have merely provided a list of several grades of the PUC and have made simplistic assertions that the
domestic industry does not produce like or directly competitive products and cannot match the technical
specifications of the imported grades.
e) If a party claims that any grade is not manufactured by the domestic industry or that the technical
specifications or quality of the domestically produced goods are insufficient, the burden of proof lies with
that party to establish these claims with credible and substantiated documentary evidence. According to the
domestic industry, this burden of proof must be discharged with respect to each grade for which exclusion is
sought. It is not enough for the interested party to simply provide the name of a particular grade and make
unsubstantiated assertions regarding the domestic industry’s ability to manufacture a like or directly
competitive product. The interested parties must substantiate such claim for each grade with reliable and
credible evidence.
f) The interested parties have not provided any evidence, at the individual grade-level, to demonstrate that the
like and directly competitive products are not manufactured by the domestic industry.
40. The Authority reiterates that Agreement on Safeguard does not define the term “product under consideration”. Neither
does it “discipline the choice of the product under investigation, in itself.”4 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). Notably, the Agreement
on Safeguard acknowledges the possibility of imposing safeguard measures on imports of the article under
investigation for which there are like, or directly competitive products produced by the domestic industry.
41. 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”.
42. 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.
...
7.65. That being said, we recognize that competition in a market can manifest itself in various
ways. Indeed, competition is not limited to situations where imported and domestic products are
close to perfectly substitutable. Thus, to the extent Korea takes the view that "like" under Article
4.1(c) requires close to perfect substitutability between imported and domestic products, we
disagree. We see no textual basis for such a view. To the extent an imported product that is not
perfectly substitutable with the domestically produced good has the capacity to cause serious
injury to that good through some form of competitive impact, we do not see any basis to interpret
"like" in Article 4.1(c) to exclude such goods. Instead, an investigating authority is entitled as
part of its causation determination to examine whether that imported product did cause injury to
the domestic industry through that competitive effect. We do not consider that the drafters of the
Agreement on Safeguards would have intended the domestic industry to be defined in a way that
would preclude the investigating authority from making such a causation determination.
However, while we recognize that competition can manifest itself in various ways, we do not
consider that "like" under Article 4.1(c), interpreted in the context of Article 4 as a whole and
Article 2.1, covers products that have been found not to have any competitive relation with
imported products.”
43. The Panel, in the same report, acknowledged that even if the imported goods are not “like” the domestically produced
products, the imported products 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.”
44. 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.
45. 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.”
46. 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.”
47. With respect to the burden of proof, the Authority notes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of
ATMA v. Designated Authority has noted that the Designated Authority exercises quasi-judicial functions in trade
remedy proceedings. The Authority further notes that it is a well-established principle of law that before a quasi-
judicial body, the burden to prove a fact lies with the party that asserts the fact. In the case of State of W.B. v. Atul
Krishna Shaw,5
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in a quasi-judicial enquiry it is for the party who relies upon
certain state of facts in their favour to adduce evidence in proof thereof.”6
48. The Authority notes that the test to determine which party has the burden of proof, is which party would fail if no
evidence is led. In the instant case, if the other interested parties claim that the DI does not manufacture the like or
directly competitive grade, the said claim will fail if no evidence is led by the other interested party. Therefore, the
burden of proof lies with the other interested party to adduce documentary evidence to prove their claims. This legal
standard has been applied in previous safeguard investigations undertaken by the Authority, most pertinently, in the
safeguard investigation concerning Single Mode Optical Fibre, where the Authority rejected the request made by a
Japanese exporter to exclude certain grades of the PUC citing insufficient evidence:
27. One of the interested parties, SEI Ltd., Japan has claimed that the grades G652, G655 and G
657 manufactured and sold by SEI are different from those manufactured by Domestic Industry
on account of the difference in the physical characteristics, customer preference, quality, etc. In
this regard, it is noted that the grades of SMOF are defined by the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU-T), which are universally accepted. Further, it has been
submitted by the Domestic Industry that their goods compete with those manufactured by SEI
Ltd. not only in domestic market but also in international market. It is also not the case of the
concerned exporter that grades manufactured by the Domestic industry do not confirm to the
technical specification provided by the ITU-T, or that such specifications are vague or incorrect.
Thus, in absence of any credible evidence to substantiate SEI Ltd.'s claim that there is any
difference or any instance of customer preference in respect of goods manufactured by them
over those manufactured by the domestic industry, their argument for exclusion of these grades
cannot be accepted.
49. The Authority therefore notes that the burden of proof lies with the interested party that requests for the exclusion of a
certain grade to establish its claim.
50. 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 counterclaims regarding exclusion requests, the Authority considered the
following legal standard to be appropriate.
51. 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.
52. 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 further notes that certain interested parties have submitted that the imported
grades are of superior quality and that the domestic industry does not manufacture like or directly competitive articles
to these grades. The domestic industry submitted that the goods produced and sold by them are compliant with the
relevant BIS standards. The domestic industry further submitted that if the interested parties are of the view that the
BIS standard is not appropriate, the said party may raise such grievance before the BIS technical committee. The
Authority reiterates that quality concerns are not a valid ground excluding a product from the scope of the PUC. The
Authority considers that excluding a product grade on the basis of quality claims would undermine the objective of a
trade remedy action.
53. The Authority has examined each of the exclusion requests individually in the following paragraphs. The Authority
determines that 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.
54. 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)
55. 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).
56. 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.
57. 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 would have the ability to deny approval of the domestic industry’s
products thereby ensuring that such products do not attract trade remedy measures.
58. The Authority determines that, it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or
directly competitive articles”.
59. 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.
60. 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, 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)
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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. Further, the difficulty in transportation 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 like or directly competitive articles.
66. 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.
67. 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 [***], 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, is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by HSC other than the grades that have been
accepted by the domestic industry.
68. 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)
69. 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.
70. 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 “directly competitive” articles.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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)
75. 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.
76. The domestic industry submitted that NSC has merely provided the names of the grades for which it has sought
exclusion. The domestic industry further submitted that NSC has made assertions that the grades are not manufactured
by the domestic industry and that there are no client approvals due to insufficient quality. The domestic industry
submitted that the burden of proof lies with NCS to demonstrate the said claims with respect to each of the grades for
which NSC has sought exclusion.
77. The domestic industry further submitted that it has filed invoices containing at least [ ***] sales transactions of Hot
Rolled Coils, [ ***] transactions of HR Plate Mill Plates, [ ***] transactions of Hot Dipped Galvanized Sheets, [ ***]
transactions of Cold Rolled Coils and [ ***] transactions of Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium, which are either like or
directly competitive with the articles for which NSC has sought exclusion.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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. The
Authority notes that 8 out of the 312 grades of steel for which NSC has sought exclusion falls under the excluded
categories of the PUC.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. Coated with Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium - NSC have 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.
86. Therefore, the Authority, 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”)
87. 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”.
88. The domestic industry submitted that JFE has merely provided the names of the grades for which it has sought
exclusion. The domestic industry further submitted that JFE has made assertions that the grades are not manufactured
by the domestic industry and that there are no client approvals due to insufficient quality. The domestic industry
submitted that the burden of proof lies with JFE to demonstrate the said claims with respect to each of the grades for
which JFE has sought exclusion.
89. The domestic industry further submitted that it has filed invoices containing at least [ ***] sales transactions of Hot
Rolled Coils, [ ***] transactions of HR Plate Mill Plates, [ ***] transactions of Hot Dipped Galvanized Sheets, [ ***]
transactions of Cold Rolled Coils and [ ***] transactions of Zinc-Aluminium-Magnesium, which are either like or
directly competitive with the articles for which JFE has sought exclusion.
90. Authority notes that the JFE has provided various Japanese Standards under which the 37 grades for which exclusion
is requested 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion the requests filed by JFE.
94. 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”.
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion the requests filed by JFE.
99. 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”.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by JFE.
104. 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”.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by JFE.
108. 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.
109. 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.
110. 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”)
111. 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.
112. 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 Aluminium 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. The
Authority notes that the following 32 out of the 218 grades of steel for which SIAM has sought an exclusion request
fall under the grades accepted for exclusion by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from the
scope of the investigation.
ALCOSTA
SA1D
SA1E
Al-Si coated steel
PHS950Y1300T
PQS340Y410T
SABC1470
"EN 10327 DX56D (ALCOSTA – Hot-dip aluminum silicon coated steel)"
Electro Nickel Coated Cold Rolled Steel Sheet in Coil "Ni Top"
Electrolytically Nickel Plated Cold Rolled Steel (Hillumin)
TS-4525
Durzinklite/NSNC270G
JFE-CGX-EZN*GT ; JFE-CE-EZN* M/GT
EFTSN
HES-JNC270E
JFE-CE-EZNM/GT-0-0/20 (EZNPEN)
JNC270DN
JNC270DNZ
JNC270FNZ
SRNCEN-D
SRNCEN-F
SRNRC390E-F
Welcote (WZLEN)
YJNC270D
YNC270D
YNC270F
Zn-Ni coated steel
SECC
SECC-S
SPCEN-CF-TYPE-D
Aluminium Alloy and base metal Steel
Sandwhich Steel (MPM)
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. 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).
117. 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 notes that 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.
118. The Authority notes that 3 out of the 34 grades of steel for which KIA has sought exclusion fall under the under the
grades accepted for exclusion by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from the scope of the
investigation
ALC SACD
AL-SI SABC1470
ZN-NI SRNRC390E-F
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 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 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., GRI Towers India
Private Limited.
119. 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
120. 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 [***].
121. 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.
k) POSCO, Korea RP
122. 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.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request.
126. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
127. 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 is unable to
accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
128. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
129. 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, , is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
130. 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 Hardening 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
131. 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.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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, is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
135. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request of the interested party.
136. The Authority determines that, 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 Steele ON, Korea RO
137. 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). Authority notes that the exclusion request for Aluminized steel has been accepted as stated in paragraph
no. xxx
138. 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.
139. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion
request filed by POSCO with respect to colour coated electrogalvanized steel.
140. 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.
141. 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
142. 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 of these grades while examining submissions
of Nippon Steel Corporation above.
o) LG Electronics India Ltd.
143. 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’.
144. The domestic industry submitted that LG has merely provided email correspondences with Tata Steel and JSW, but
none of the other domestic producers regarding their inability to supply the PUC. The domestic industry submitted
that LG has not provided any evidence that any of the other applicant companies were unable to manufacture and
supply the required grades. The domestic industry further submitted that it has filed invoices containing at least [ ***]
transactions involving sale of PPGI and PPGL steel.
145. 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.
146. 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.
147. 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’.
148. 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.
149. The domestic industry submitted that Godrej has merely provided email correspondences with Tata Steel, JSW and
AMNS, but none of the other domestic producers regarding their inability to supply the PUC. The domestic industry
submitted that LG has not provided any evidence that any of the other applicant companies were unable to
manufacture and supply the required grades. The domestic industry further submitted that it has filed invoices
demonstrating sales of like or directly competitive articles.
150. 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.
151. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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 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.
154. 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.
155. 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”.
156. 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.
157. 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, is unable to accept the exclusion requests of SSAB.
s) Ashok Leyland Defence Systems Ltd.
158. 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.
159. 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
is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Tay Nam Steel.
u) Kobe Steel Limited
160. 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.
161. The domestic industry submitted that Kobe Steel has merely provided the names of the grades for which it has sought
exclusion. The domestic industry further submitted that Kobe Steel has made assertions that the grades are not
manufactured by the domestic industry and that there are no client approvals due to insufficient quality. The domestic
industry submitted that the burden of proof lies with Kobe Steel to demonstrate the said claims with respect to each of
the grades for which Kobe Steel has sought exclusion.
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 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 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
163. 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’.
164. 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.
165. 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
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.
166. 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.
167. 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 steel 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Metal One Corporation in this regard.
168. The Authority notes that the following 6 out of the 12 grades of steel for which Metal One Corporation has sought
exclusion are covered by the exclusions accepted by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from
the scope of the investigation
Aluminium Coated Steel Coil (USIBOR1500+AS (R1500+AS150)
Copper Plated Strip Coil (MSK-C-DB)
Electro Nickel Coated Steel Coil (Ni-Top);
Welcote Coil (One Side Zn-Ni Electrical Coated Alloy Steel with Special Treatment) Wzlen
Ecokote (Tin-Zinc Coated Steel) TZSE-30/30 TZSC-30/30
Zinklite (Electro Zn-Ni Coated Steel) JNC270DN
w) Shivalik Bimetals Controls Limited
169. 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’.
170. The domestic industry submitted that Shivalik bimetals has not provided any evidence to provide that the like or
directly competitive article is not manufactured in India.
171. 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.
x) Manaksia Steels Limited
172. 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 due to favouring
economies of scale. Manaksia 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’.
Where specific claims have been made that the domestic industry does not manufacture particular grades/types of
steel, the Authority has evaluated such claims based on the legal standard applicable to safeguard investigations.
173. The domestic industry submitted that Manaksia has not provided any evidence to provide that the like or directly
competitive article is not manufactured in India.
174. 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.
175. 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
176. 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.
177. 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.
178. 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.
179. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Tata Motors. The Authority
notes that the following 3 out of the 6 grades of steel for which Tata Motors has sought exclusion fall under the
exclusions accepted by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from the scope of the investigation
Hot Dip Alu Si coated steel - Fuel Tank
Hot Dip AluSi USIBOR Steel – BNCAP CRASH
Stainless Steel – Exhaust etc
z) ACMA, NRB Bearing, Sharda Motors Industries Limited, National Engineering Industries Ltd, AISIN
Automobiles
180. 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.
181. 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.
182. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion
requests filed by interested parties.
183. The Authority notes that the following 3 out of 35 grades of steel for which the interested parties have sought
exclusion fall under the exclusions accepted by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from the
scope of the investigation.
EMS200 CRUTONITE
EMS215 Inconel
SWRH72A – Brass Coated Steel Wire
aa) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
184. 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).
185. 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.
186. 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.
187. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests.
bb) Jay Bharat Maruti Limited
188. 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.
189. 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, is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by JBM.
190. The Authority notes that the following 4 out of 6 grades for which the Jay Bharati Maruti has sought exclusion fall
under the exclusions accepted by the domestic industry The following grades are excluded from the scope of the
investigation
Aluminium Coated Steel Coils for Exhaust System (SA1D40/40)
Aluminium Coated Steel Coils for Exhaust System (SA1E30/30)
Nickel Plated Steel Coils Breather Tube (SPCC)
Nickel Plated Steel Coils Breather Tube (SPCC)
cc) Katsushiro Matex India Pvt. Ltd.
191. 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’.
192. 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.
193. 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.
194. The domestic industry submitted that CR Grain oriented Electrical steel and CR non-oriented Electrical steel already
stand excluded from the product scope. The domestic industry produces HR required for making electrical steel.
Therefore, the domestic industry stated that it does not agree to the exclusion of HR meant for producing electrical
steel.
195. 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.
ee) CU Built Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vestas Wind Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Senvion Wind Technology
Private Limited
196. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion
request filed by these interested parties.
ff) Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke from Germany
197. 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.
198. 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 is
unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke.
gg) Isgec Hitachi Zosen Ltd.
199. 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.
200. 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.
201. 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, is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by
Isgec Hitachi.
hh) Ashok Leyland Limited
202. 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.
203. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request of the
interested party.
ii) Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private limited
204. 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
205. 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.
206. 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 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 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
207. 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.
208. 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 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 it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is producing “like or directly competitive
articles”.
209. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by KG
Dongbu Steel.
ll) Dongkuk CM, Korea and Dongkuk Steel India Pvt Ltd
210. 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’.
211. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion
request filed by Dongkuk with respect to colour coated electrogalvanized steel.
mm) Metal and Stainless-Steel Merchants Association
212. 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. The
Authority notes that the following 7 grades of steel for which the interested party has sought exclusion fall under the
exclusions accepted by the domestic industryThe following grades are excluded from the scope of the investigation.
Copper-plated Steel
Cobalt-Plated Steel
Silver-Plated Steel
Die Steel
Aluminized Steel
Nickel Plated Steel
Plastic mould steel & amp, power tool steel
213. 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
214. 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.
215. 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.
216. 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.
217. The domestic industry has produced 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
218. 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.
219. The domestic industry has provided several invoices of sales of Galvalume sheets under IS 15961. Therefore, the
Authority is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by Stitch Overseas.
pp) Hella India Automotive Pvt Limited
220. 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.
221. 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 it would be sufficient to examine if the Domestic Industry is
producing “like or directly competitive articles”.
222. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests
filed by Hella India Automotive Pvt Limited.
qq) Polyhose Sato-Shoji Metal Works Private Limited
223. 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
224. 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, is unable
to accept the exclusion request filed by NTECK.
ss) Toyota Boshoku Device India Private Limited
225. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by Toyota pertaining to grades used in automotive
application.
tt) Riddhi Siddhi Special Steel Pvt Ltd.
226. 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.
227. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by
Riddhi Siddhi Special Steel Pvt Ltd.
uu) Sansera Engineering Private Limited
228. 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
229. 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.
230. 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.
231. 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
232. 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.
233. 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.
234. 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.
235. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion requests filed by HSC pertaining to grades used in automotive
application.
yy) TATA Steel Downstream Products Ltd
236. 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).
237. 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 is unable to accept the exclusion request filed by TII.
aaa) Velmurugan Heavy Engg. Inds. Pvt. Ltd.
238. 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.
239. 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
approval 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, is unable to accept
the exclusion request filed by Velmurugan.
bbb) All India Metal
240. All India metal has requested for the exclusion of Aluminium Coated and Aluminium Silicon coated steel. The
Authority notes that the following 2 grades of steel for which All India Metal has sought exclusion fall under the
exclusions accepted by the domestic industry. The following grades are excluded from the scope of the investigation
Hot Dipped Aluminized Steel under HSN 72106900 (89%-95% Aluminium, 5%-11% Silicon)
Nickel plated steel & copper plated steel under HS Code 72269990, 72125090, 72109090 used in Electronic and EV
battery
ccc) Mahindra Defence Systems Limited
241. 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.
ddd) Uno Minda Limited
242. Uno Minda has requested for the exclusion of two specific grades of coated steel for automotive horn application,
which have a coating of chromium, molybdenum, nickel, aluminium, titanium, niobium. The Authority has accepted
the exclusion of nickel, certain grades of aluminium and titanium coated steel. The grades for which Uno Minda
claims exclusion which fall under these categories are consequently excluded.
Conclusion
243. 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;
244. The Authority notes that the interested parties have filed exclusion requests covering various proprietary grades of
steel. As noted in the relevant portions of the Authority’s examination above, the exclusion requests pertaining to
proprietary grades are unacceptable as they pertain to a specific company. Therefore, imports of proprietary grades
that fall under the abovementioned 22 grades would consequently be exempt from the application of the safeguard
duties.
245. Certain interested parties submitted that the domestic industry had agreed for the exclusion of 50 line items, whereas
the Preliminary Findings issued by the Authority excludes only 22 grades. The Authority notes that there were several
repetitions within the 50 line entries for which the domestic industry has agreed for exclusion.
246. 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”.
E. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
247. 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.”
248. 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.
249. 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 |
| :-------------------------- | :------ | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- |
| 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 |
| :-------------------------- | :------ | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- |
| 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 |
| :-------------------------- | :------ | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- |
| 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 | 8,126 | 8,474 | 9,692 | 9,692 |
| | 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 |
| :-------------------------- | :------ | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- |
| 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 |
| :-------------------------- | :------ | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- | :--------- |
| 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%