Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-DL-E-26062026-273860
EXTRAORDINARY
PART I-Section 1
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 168] | NEW DELHI, MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2026/ASADHA 1, 1948
4617 GI/2026 | (1)
2 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
4 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
6 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
8 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
AMITABH KUMAR, Designated Authority
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
[Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) ]
INITIATION NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2026
Case No. AD(OI) (15/2026)
SETU Case Id No - AD/OI/016/2026
Subject: Initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Cold Rolled Grain Oriented
Electrical Steel (CRGO) and Amorphous Metal (AM)” originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea
RP, and Russia.
F. No. 6/17/2026-DGTR.— Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as amended from time to
time (hereinafter referred to as the "Act”) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection
of Anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 as amended from time to
time (hereinafter referred to as the “AD Rules" or the "Anti-dumping Rules"), JSW JFE Electrical Steel Nashik
Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the “Applicant”) has filed an application before the Designated
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority"), for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning
imports of "Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel (CRGO) and Amorphous Metal (AM)” (hereinafter
referred to as "subject goods" or "product under consideration" or "PUC").
2. The Applicant has sought anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subject goods originating in
or exported from China PR, Japan, Korea RP, Russia and European Union. However, upon examination of the
data received from the DG Systems and the application filed by the applicant, negative injury margin was
observed in the case European Union. Hence, the Authority has not initiated anti-dumping investigations
against European Union. The Authority has considered China PR, Japan, Korea RP and Russia as the subject
countries in the present investigation (hereinafter referred to as "subject countries").
3. The Applicant has alleged that dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries is causing
material injury and has requested the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of the subject goods from
the subject countries.
A. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
4. The product under consideration (“PUC") in the present investigation is (i) Cold Rolled Grain Oriented
Electrical Steel ("CRGO") and (ii) Amorphous Metal ("AM").
5. CRGO is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent
of Silicon (Si), whether in coils or in sheet form or in lamination form. AM, a directly substitutable product, is
an alloy with a non-crystalline structure produced by ultra-rapid quenching of molten alloy with iron and is
accordingly included in the product scope.
6. Both CRGO and AM are magnetic materials used as core material in electrical transformers. Applicant has
claimed that Amorphous Metal (AM) and Cold-Rolled Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel (CRGO) are not
physically identical but are technically and commercially substitutable and interchangeable.
9
7. The principal end-use of CRGO and AM materials is for manufacture of power / distribution transformer cores.
Both materials are used by the same consumer industries i.e. transformer manufacturers supplying to utilities,
industrial users, and renewable power projects. From the perspective of end-use, the two materials are
functionally interchangeable.
8. The following are excluded from the scope of PUC:
i. | Amorphous Metal used for purposes other than production of power/distribution transformers.
ii. | Magnesium Oxide (MgO) coated cold rolled steel coils for use in manufacture of CRGO as
| substrate.
Unit of measurement
9. The prescribed unit of measurement for the product under consideration is Metric Tons (MT) or Kilogram
(Kg).
Tariff Classification
10. The product under consideration is classified under tariff items 7225 1100, 7226 1100 and 7226 9930 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, imports of PUC have also been observed in certain other HS Codes viz.,
7225 1920, 7225 1990, 7226 1920, 7226 9910, 7226 1990, 7226 99 10, 7226 99 20 and 7226 9990. However,
the customs classification is indicative only and not binding on the scope of the product under consideration.
11. The Applicant has not proposed any PCN methodology. The parties to the present investigation may provide
their comments on the scope of PUC and product control numbers (PCN) methodology, if any, within 15 days
of circulation of the receipt of intimation of initiation of the investigation.
B. LIKE ARTICLE
12. Applicant is the producer of CRGO but not Amorphous Metal. Applicant claimed that although Amorphous
Metal and CRGO have different physical structures, they serve identical functions, are used by the same
consumers for the same end-use, are treated as interchangeable by the market and regulatory bodies and
compete directly on price and performance.
13. Applicant claimed that the subject goods and the article manufactured by the Applicant are technically and
commercially substitutable. The consumers of the product under consideration are using the subject goods and
the article manufactured by the Applicant interchangeably. Thus, for the purposes of initiation of the present
investigation, the article produced by the Applicant has been prima facie considered as like article to the product
being imported from the subject countries.
14. The Applicant has stated that there are no significant differences in the article produced by the Applicant and
exported from the subject countries. The article produced by the Applicant and that imported from the subject
countries is comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and
technology, functions and uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tariff
classification of the subject goods. The subject goods and the article manufactured by the Applicant are
technically and commercially substitutable. The Applicant has claimed that the consumers of the product under
consideration are using the subject goods and the article manufactured by the Applicant interchangeably. Thus,
for the purposes of initiation of the present investigation, the article produced by the Applicant has been prima
facie considered as like article to the product being imported from the subject countries.
C. SUBJECT COUNTRIES
15. The subject countries in the present investigation are China PR, Japan, Korea RP and Russia.
D. PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION (POI)
16. The applicant initially proposed Period of Investigation for 9 months i.e. 1st April 2025 to 31st December
2025 (9 Months) and the injury investigation period as 1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023, 1st April 2023 to
31st March 2024, 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025 and the POI. Subsequently, applicant has requested to
revise period of investigation for 12 months i.e. 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026 as it would enable a more
accurate and comprehensive assessment of dumping, injury, and causal link. Hence, the revised period
proposed by the applicant has been considered appropriate for the purpose of the investigation and accordingly
the Authority has decided to consider the period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation (hereinafter
referred to as “POI") as 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026 (12 months) and the injury investigation period as
1st April 2022 to 31st March 2023, 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024, 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025.
E. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING
17. The application for initiation of the present investigation has been filed by JSW JFE Electrical Steel Nashik
Private Limited.
10 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
18. The Applicant has submitted that NLMK India Coating Private Limited is only other domestic producer of
PUC besides the Applicant. Applicant has claimed that NLMK India Coating Private Limited is related to the
exporter of the subject goods from Russia and also related to the importer of subject goods in India.
19. It is further submitted that NLMK Group Russia has exported subject goods to India during the injury
investigation period in substantial quantities. NLMK India Service Center Pvt. Ltd. is the importer of subject
goods from NLMK Group Russia. NLMK India Coating Pvt. Ltd is related to producers and exporters of
subject goods in subject country and is also related to importer of subject goods in India. Hence, Applicant has
submitted that NLMK India Coating Pvt. Ltd. cannot be considered as an eligible domestic industry in terms
of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.
20. The views of another domestic producer namely NLMK has been sought, asking them to submit the
information about the imports made by them or related companies from subject country, and whether they are
related to producers and exporters of subject goods in subject country and is also related to importer of subject
goods in India. NLMK India has submitted that its related entities in Russia, namely, Novolipetsk Steel and
Viz Steel Limited Liability Company have made significant exports to India during the injury period including
the POI. NLMK India also submitted that it has a related entity in India, NLMK India Service Center Pvt. Ltd.
who imported the subject goods from its related entities in Russia, Novolipetsk Steel and Viz Steel Limited
Liability Company during the injury period including the POI. The Authority has noted that exports by
Novolipetsk Steel and Viz Steel Limited Liability Company /imports by NLMK India Service Center Pvt. Ltd.
during the POI are of significant quantities in comparison to total imports from Russia, total Indian production
and production by NLMK India.
21. In view of the above, the Authority notes that NLMK India is related to producers/exporters of the subject
goods in Russia and is also related to an importer of the subject goods in India. Accordingly, NLMK India does
not qualify as an eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules.
22. In view of the information furnished by the applicant and the facts noted in the preceding paragraphs, the
Authority prima facie considers that the Applicant constitutes an eligible domestic industry within the meaning
of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules and the application satisfies the requirement of Rule 5(3) of the AD Rules.
F. BASIS OF ALLEGED DUMPING
a. Normal Value for China PR
23. The applicant has claimed that China PR should be treated as a non-market economy and the normal value
should be determined in terms of Rule- 7 of Annexure I of the Rules. The applicant has cited Para 8(2) of
Annexure I of the Rules and has stated that the Chinese producers should be directed to demonstrate that market
economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the subject goods in terms of Para 8(3) of Annexure I of
the Rules. The applicant has claimed that for China PR, normal value should be determined in accordance with
Para 7 and 8 of Annexure I of the Rules.
24. The applicant has submitted that efforts were made to determine normal value on the basis of price or
constructed value in a market economy third country. However, the applicant could not get reliable information
regarding the information on price or cost in market economy in a third country. Therefore, the normal value
has been constructed based on cost of production of the applicant, duly adjusted for selling, general and
administrative expenses, with reasonable profit. The same has been considered for the purpose of initiation of
the investigation.
b. Normal Value for Japan, Korea RP and Russia
25. The Applicant has submitted that it was not able to obtain information on comparable prices of the subject
goods in Japan, Korea RP and Russia. This information is also not available from any public source. Further,
since the subject goods are being imported under various codes, no reliable information was available as
regards the representative price of the subject goods when exported from subject countries to third countries.
In view of the same, the Applicant has estimated normal value for Japan, Korea RP and Russia based on facts
available, having regard to the cost of production in India, with reasonable addition for selling, general &
administrative expenses, and profits as the basis for normal value. The same has been considered for the
purpose of initiation of the investigation.
c. Export Price
26. The Applicant has determined the export price for the subject countries by considering the volume and value
of imports as per its market intelligence. However, for the purpose of the determining export price of subject
goods from subject countries, DG systems data has been adopted for ascertaining ex-factory export price.
11
Adjustments on account of ocean freight, marine insurance, commission, bank charges, credit cost, port
expenses and handling charges have been made.
d. Dumping Margin
27. The normal value and the export price have been compared at ex-factory level, which prima facie shows that
the dumping margin is above the de-minimis level and is significant with respect to the product under
consideration exported from the subject countries. Thus, there is prima facie evidence that the product under
consideration from the subject countries is being dumped in the Indian market by the exporters from the subject
countries.
G. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK
28. The Applicant has provided prima facie evidence with respect to the injury suffered by the domestic industry
due to the dumped imports. The volume of the subject imports from the subject countries has increased in both
absolute as well as relative terms. There is evidence of price suppression and depression due to imports. The
subject imports have had an adverse impact on the profitability parameters of the domestic industry.
29. From the foregoing, the Authority prima facie finds sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods
originating in or exported from the subject countries, injury to the domestic industry and causal link between
the alleged dumping and injury exist to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation in terms of Rule 5 of
the Rules, to determine the existence, degree, and effect of alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of
anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove injury to the domestic industry.
H. RETROSPECTIVE IMPOSITION OF DUTIES
30. The applicant has requested for retrospective imposition of the antidumping duty by claiming the following:
a. There is clear history of dumping of the product from the subject countries.
b. The importers in India are aware of the fact that exporters practice dumping of subject goods into
India. The importers are also aware that such a practice would cause injury to the Indian producers.
c. The exporters have resorted to massive dumping and dumping margin has remained significant during
the period of investigation.
d. The performance of domestic industry has steeply declined over the period of investigation.
31. Applicant has requested Designated Authority to recommend imposition of anti-dumping duty on a
retrospective basis for a period of ninety (90) days prior to the date of imposition of provisional duty.
32. The Authority may seek the views/comments of the interested parties in this regard as per time limit given in
the notification.
I. INITIATION OF ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION
33. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application submitted by the Applicant and having reached
satisfaction based on the prima facie evidence submitted by the Applicant concerning the dumping of the
product under consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries, the consequential injury to
the domestic industry as a result of the alleged dumping of the product under consideration and the causal link
between such injury and the dumped imports, and in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 5
of the AD Rules, the Authority, hereby, initiates an anti-dumping investigation to determine the existence,
degree, and effect of the dumping with respect to the product under consideration originating in or exported
from the subject countries and to recommend the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied,
would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
J. PROCEDURE
34. The provisions stipulated in Rule 6 of the Anti-Dumping Rules shall be followed in this investigation.
K. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION
35. All the interested parties are required to register themselves on SETU Portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in). All
communications and submissions from the interested parties shall be uploaded on the SETU portal under their
registered name and corresponding SETU Case ID no. No - AD/OI/016/2026. It should be ensured that the
narrative part of the submission is in searchable PDF/MS-Word format and data files are in MS-Excel format.
36. The known producers/exporters in subject country, the government of subject country through its Embassy in
India, and the importers and users in India who are known to be associated with the product under consideration
are being informed separately to enable them to file all the relevant information within the time limits
mentioned in this initiation notification. All such information must be filed in the form and manner as
prescribed by this initiation notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the Authority.
12 | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY | [PART I-SEC.1]
37. Any other interested party may also make a submission relevant to the present investigation in the form and
manner as prescribed by this initiation notification, the Rules, and the applicable trade notices issued by the
Authority within the time limits mentioned in this initiation notification.
38. Any party making any confidential submission before the Authority is required to make a non-confidential
version of the same available to the other interested parties.
39. The interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the official website of the Directorate
General of Trade Remedies at www.dgtr.gov.in and SETU portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) for any updated
information with respect to this investigation. Interested parties are directed to regularly visit the website of
DGTR (https://www.dgtr.gov.in/) to stay apprised with the further developments in the subject investigation
and remain informed regarding notices that may be issued from time to time regarding questionnaire formats,
PCN methodology, PCN discussion/meeting schedule, notice of oral hearing, corrigendum, amendment
notifications, and other such information.
L. TIME LIMIT
40. Any information relating to the present investigation should be uploaded on the SETU portal
(https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) under their registered name and corresponding case ID – AD/OI/016/2026.
41. Both versions of each submission, the confidential version (CV) and the non-confidential version (NCV) must
be uploaded in the respective designated columns within 37 days from the date on which the non-confidential
version of the application filed by the domestic industry would be circulated by the Authority or transmitted to
the appropriate diplomatic representative of the exporting country as per Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules, 1995. If
no information is received within the stipulated time limit or the information received is incomplete, the
Authority may record its findings based on the facts available on record and in accordance with the AD Rules,
1995.
42. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate their interest (including the nature of interest) in the
instant matter and file their questionnaire responses within the above time limit as stipulated in this notification
through SETU portal only.
43. The 15-day period to file comments on the scope of the PUC/ PCN Methodology shall run concurrently with
the time limit mentioned in para 41 above of this Initiation Notification.
44. Extension due to Modification of PUC/PCN: An extension of time by 15 days shall be granted if the Authority,
through a subsequent notice, modifies the PUC, and PCN that was not previously proposed or is different from
the initiation notification. This extension of 15 days shall be granted from date of such notification of modified
PUC and PCN. Extension of time by 15 days stated in this paragraph is not applicable in instances where there
is no change in the PUC, and PCN methodology after initiation of investigation. Requests for a further
extension of time, beyond the 15-day extension (if granted), will ordinarily not be considered except in case of
exceptional circumstances, in line with the Rule 6(4) of the AD Rules.
45. Any request for an extension must be submitted by the concerned parties through the SETU portal at least one
day before the original deadline specified above. Requests submitted after this time will not be considered.
M. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONFIDENTIAL BASIS
46. Where any party to the present investigation makes confidential submissions or provides information on a
confidential basis before the Authority, such party is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential
version of such information in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules and in accordance with the relevant trade
notices issued by the Authority in this regard. Failure to adhere to the above may lead to rejection of the
response/submissions.
47. The parties making any submission (including Appendices/ Annexures attached thereto), before the
Authority including questionnaire responses, are required to file confidential and non-confidential versions
separately.
48. Such submissions must be clearly marked as 'confidential' or 'non-confidential' at the top of each page.
Any submission that has been made to the Authority without such markings shall be treated as 'non-
confidential' information by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow other interested
parties to inspect such submissions.
49. The confidential version shall contain all information which is, by nature, confidential, and/or other
information, which the supplier of such information claims as confidential. For the information which is
claimed to be confidential by nature, or the information on which confidentiality is claimed because of
other reasons, the supplier of the information is required to provide a good cause statement along with the
supplied information as to why such information cannot be disclosed.
13
50. The non-confidential version of the information filed by the interested parties is required to be a replica of
the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (where
indexation is not possible) and such information must be appropriately and adequately summarized
depending upon the information on which confidentiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must
be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information furnished
on a confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the confidential
information may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons
containing a sufficient and adequate explanation as to why such summarization is not possible, must be
provided to the satisfaction of the Authority.
51. The interested parties can offer their comments on the issues of confidentiality within 7 days from the date
of circulation of the non-confidential version of the documents.
52. The Authority may accept or reject the request for confidentiality on examination of the nature of the
information submitted. If the Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or
if the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its
disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.
53. Any submission made without a meaningful non-confidential version thereof or a sufficient and adequate
cause statement in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, and appropriate trade notices issued by the Authority, on
the confidentiality claim shall not be taken on record by the Authority.
N. INSPECTION OF PUBLIC FILE
54. All non-confidential versions of submissions made by any interested party will be accessible to other
interested parties through their respective login on the SETU portal.
O. NON-COOPERATION
55. In case any interested party refuses access to and otherwise does not provide necessary information within
a reasonable period or within the time stipulated by the Authority in this initiation notification, or
significantly impedes the investigation, the Authority may declare such interested party as non-cooperative
and record its findings based on the facts available and make such recommendations to the Central
Government as it deems fit.
AMITABH KUMAR, Designated Authority
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. SARVESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Login to read full text