Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel (CRGO) and Amorphous Metal

5/17 /?O26-DGTR l/131374/2026 F. No.6/17l2026-DGTR Government of lndia Ministry of Commerce & Industry Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) 4th Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 1 1 0001 Dated:22dJune 2026

Case No. AD(OD (15/2026)

SETU Case ld No - AD/O|/016/2026 sublect:-tnitiation or an ""uffi##ffi ncernins imports or .,cord Rolled Grain Oriented Electrtcal Steel (CRGO) and Amorphous Metal (AM)" originating in or exported from China pR, Japan, Korea Rp, and Russia. F. No. 611712026-DGTR : Having regard to the Customs Tarifl Act, 1975 as 1m91ded from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the,Act") and the Customs Tariff (ldentification, Assessment and Collection ol Anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles lor Determination ol Injury) Rules, 1995 as amended f rom 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 (hereinalter referred. to.as the 'Authority"), lor initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of "Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel ICRCd; anO Amorphous Metal (AM)" (hereinafter referred lo as ,,subiect goods,; or ,,producf under consideration" or "PUC"). 2. The Applicant has sought anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the subje_ct goods originating in or exported from China pR, Japan, Korea Rp, Russia and European Union. However, upon examination of the data received irom the DG systems and the apprication fired by the appricant, negative injury margin was observed in the case European Union. Hence, the Authority has not-initiat6d anti- dumping- investigations against European Union.

nd the apprication fired by the appricant, negative injury margin was observed in the case European Union. Hence, the Authority has not-initiat6d anti- dumping- investigations against European Union. The Auihority has considered China PR, Japan, Korea Rp and Russia as the subject countries in the present investigation (hereinafter referred to as,,subject countiies,,). 3. The Appricant has alleged that dumped imports of the subject goods from the subject countries is causing material injury and has requestLd thl imposition ol 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) cord Rolled Grain Oriented Etectricat Steet (,,CRGO',) and (ii) Amorphous Metal (,;AM,,). 5 9RGo is a flat-rolled alloy steer product containing by weighi at reast 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of siricon (si), whether in coiri or in sheet foim or in lamination form. AM, a directly substitutable product, is an alloy wifh a non- crystalline structure produced by ultra-rapid quenching of molten ittoy wltn iron

ether in coiri or in sheet foim or in lamination form. AM, a directly substitutable product, is an alloy wifh a non- crystalline structure produced by ultra-rapid quenching of molten ittoy wltn iron

6/',17 / 2026 DGTR l/131374/2026 and is accordingly included in the product scope. 6. Both CRGO and AM are magnetic materials used as core material in electrical trans{ormers. 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. z. The principal end-use ol CRGO and AM materials is lor manufacture ol power / distribution transformer cores. Both materials are used by the same consumer industries i.e. transformer manulacturers supplying to utilities, industrial users, and renewable power projects. From the perspective of end-use, the two materials are f unctionally interchangeable. 8. The following are excluded from the scope of PUC: i. Amorpihous Metal used for purposes other than production of power/distribution transformers. ii. tvlagnesium Oxide (MgO) coated cold rolled steel coils for use in manufacture of CRGO as substrate' Unit ol measurement g. The prescribed unit of measurement tor the product under consideration is Metric Tons (MT) or Kilogram (Kg). intimation of initiation of the investigation B. LIKE ARTICLE Tarifl Classification 10.

g. The prescribed unit of measurement tor the product under consideration is Metric Tons (MT) or Kilogram (Kg). intimation of initiation of the investigation B. LIKE ARTICLE Tarifl Classification 10. The product under consideration is classified under tariff items 7225 1100,7226 l100and7226gg3ooftheCustomsTariffAct,1975'However'importsolPUC have also been observed in certain other HS Codes viz., 7225 1920,7225 1990, 7226 1g2O,7226 gg10,7226 lgg1' 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. ll.TheApplicanthasnotproposedanyPCNmethodology.Thepartiestothepresent investigation ,ay prou,d" ih"ir comments on the scope ol PUC and product control numueis (pcN) methodology, i{ any, within 15 days of circulation of the receipt of l2.ApplicantistheproducerofCRGobutnotAmorphousMetal.Applicantclaimed trat attnougn Amorphous Metal and cRGO have different physical structures, they serve ident-ical functions, are used by the same consumers lor the same end-use' are treated as interchangeable by the market and regulatory bodies and compete directly on price and performance. rS.

serve ident-ical functions, are used by the same consumers lor the same end-use' are treated as interchangeable by the market and regulatory bodies and compete directly on price and performance. rS. nppiicant claimed that the subject goods and the article manufactured by the nii:ticant are technically and commercially substitutable The consumers of the piJouct unae, consideration are using the subject goods and the article ,manulacturedbytheApplicantinterchangeably.Thus,forthepurposesolinitiation of tne fresent investigaiion, the article produced by the Applicant has been prima facie considered as iike article to the product being imported from the subject countries. 14. The Applicant has stated that there are no signif icant differences in the article proouceobytheApplicantandexportedfromthesubjectcountries.Thearticle produced by the Applicant and ihat imported from the subject countries is

6/17 /2026-DGTR l/ 131374/2026 comparable in terms of physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process and technology, lunctions and uses, product specirications, pricing, distribution and marketing, and tarifl classification ol 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 manulactured by the Applicant interchangeably.

commercially substitutable. The Applicant has claimed that the consumers of the product under consideration are using the subject goods and the article manulactured 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. SUBJECTCOUNTRIES 15. The subject countries in the present investigation are china pR, Japan, Korea Rp and Russia. D. PERTOD OF |NVEST|GAT|ON (POt) 16. The applicant initially proposed period ol lnvestigation for g months i.e. ft April 2025 to 31st December 2025 (9 N/onths) and the injury investigation period as 1st April 2022to31st March2023, 1st April 2023to31st March 2024, 1st April2024 to 31st March 2025 and the pol. subsequently, applicant has requested to revise period ol investigation for'12 months i.e. 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026 as it would enable a more accurate and comprehensive assessment ol dumping, injury, and causal link. Hence, the revised period proposed by the applicant ha'i been_ considered appropriate for the purpose of the investigation and'iccordingiy the Authority has decided to consider the period of inveitigation (pol) tor tlhe present investigation (hereinafter referred to as "pol") as 1sr Aprir 2025 to 31sr March 2026 (12 months) and the injury investigation period as 1sr Aprir 2022 to 31st March2023, lst Aprit2O23to31st March 2024,1st April2024toif., Ufarcf, 2025. E, DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING .17.

March 2026 (12 months) and the injury investigation period as 1sr Aprir 2022 to 31st March2023, lst Aprit2O23to31st March 2024,1st April2024toif., Ufarcf, 2025. E, DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING .17. The application for initiation of the present investigarion has been filed by JSW JFE Electrical Steel Nashik private Limited. 18. The Applicant has submitted that NLMK lndia coating private Limited is only other domestic producer of pUC besides the Appricant. Appricant has claimed trat NLMK lndia coating Private Limited is rerated to the exporter of the subject goods from Russia and also related to the importer of subject goods in lndia. '19. lt is lurther submitted that NLtr/K Group Russia has'exported subject goods to lndia durhg the injury investigation period in substantiar quantities. trtLilx tnoia service center Pvt. Ltd. is the importer of subject goods from NLMK Group Russia. NLMK rndia coating p!,.1. Ltd is rerated io pr6ducers and exporters t subject goods in subject country and is arso rerated to importer of subjeci goods in lndia' Hence, Appricant has submitted that NLMK rndia coating pvt. Lio. cinnot be -- considered as an erigibre domestic industry in terms ol Rule 2(b1 0f the AD Rules. 20. The views of another domestic producer namery NLMK has'been sougnt, asking them to submit the inrormation about the imports made by them -or' retatei companies from subject country, and whether they are related to proOucers inO exporters of. subject gooql in subject country and is arso rerated to importer of subject goods in lndia.

em -or' retatei companies from subject country, and whether they are related to proOucers inO exporters of. subject gooql in subject country and is arso rerated to importer of subject goods in lndia. NLMK lndia has submitted that its related entities in Russia,

6/17 /20?6-DGTR l/131374/2o26 namely, Novolipetsk Steel and Viz Steel Limited Liability Company have made significant exports to lndia during the injury period including the POl. NLMK lndia also submitted that it has a related entity in lndia, NLMK lndia 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 POl. The Authority has noted that exports by Novolipetsk Steel and Viz Steel Limited Liability Company /imports by NLMK lndia Service Center Pvt. Ltd. during the POI are of significant quantities in comparison to total imports from Russia, total lndian production and production by NLMK lndia. 21 . ln view ol the above, the Authority notes that NLMK lndia is related to producers/exporters ol the subject goods in Russia and is also related to an importer of the subject goods in lndia. Accordingly, NLMK lndia does not qualify as an eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules. 22.

Russia and is also related to an importer of the subject goods in lndia. Accordingly, NLMK lndia does not qualify as an eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules. 22. ln view of the in{ormation furnished by the applicant and the facts noted in the preceding paragraphs, the Authority prlma facle considers that the Applicant constitutes an eligible domestic industry within the meaning of Rule 2(b) ol the AD Rules and the application satislies the requirement of Rule 5(3) oi 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 lof the Rules. The applicant has cited Para 8(2) of Annexure lol the Rules and has stated that the Chinese producers should be directed to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail in the induslry producing the subject goods in terms of Para 8(3) of Annexure I ol 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.

rice 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. Therelore, the normal value has been constructed based on cost of production of the applicant, duly adjusted lor selling, general and administrative expenses, with reasonable profit. The same has been considered for the purpose of initiation of the investigation. b. Normal Value lor Japan, Korea RP and Russia 25. The Applicant has submitted that it was not able to obtain inlormation on comparable prices of the subiect goods in Japan, Korea RP and Russia. This inlormation is also not available from any public source. Further, since the subject goods are being imported under various codes, no reliable information was ivailable as regards the representative price of the subject goods when exported from subject countries to third countries. ln view ol the same, the Applicant has estimated normal value lor Japan, Korea RP and Russia based on facts available, having regard to the cost of production in lndia, with reasonable addition lor selling, general & administrative expenses, and prolits as the basis for normal value. The same has been considered for the purpose of initiation of the investigation. c. Export Price

e addition lor selling, general & administrative expenses, and prolits as the basis for normal value. The same has been considered for the purpose of initiation of the investigation. c. Export Price

6/17/2026-DG1R l/1a1374/?0?6 26 The Applicant has determined the export pnce lor the subject countries by considering the volume and value ol imports as per its market intelligence. However, for the purpose of the determining export price of subject goods lrom subject countries, DG systems data has been adopted for ascertaining exjactory export price. Adjustments on account of ocean lreight, 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{actory 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 lndian 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 vorume oi 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.

d imports. The vorume oi 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 profitabirity parameters ol the domestic industry. 29. From the foregoing, the Authority prima facie finds sufficient evidence of dumping of the subject goods origrnating in or exported from the subject countries, inluijy t"o the domestic industry and causar link between the alreged dumping ano inlury eiist to justify initiation of an anti-dumping investigation in t6rms ot hu16 s ot tre hules, to determine the existence, degree, and effect of alleged dumping anO to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which il levied, would be'adequate lo 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 ol dumping of the product from the subject countries. b. The importers in lndia are aware of the fact that exporters practice dumping ol subject goods into lndia. The importers are also aware that such a practice would cause injury to the lndian producers. c. The exporters have resorted to massive dumping and dumping margin has remained significant during the period of investigation. d. The performance ol domestic industry has steeply declined over lhe period of investigation. 31.

d to massive dumping and dumping margin has remained significant during the period of investigation. d. The performance ol domestic industry has steeply declined over lhe period of investigation. 31. Applicant has requested Designated Authority to recommend imposition of anti- dumping duty on a retrospective basis for a feriod of ninety (90) days priorto tre date of imposition of provisional duty. 32 The Authority may seek the views/commenrs of the interested parties in this regard

6/ 17 / ?O26-DGTR l/131374/?0?6 as per time limit given in the notilication. I. INITIATION OF ANTI.DUMPING INVESTIGATION 33. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application submitted by the Applicant and having reached satislaction based on the prima facie evidence submitted by the Applicant concerning the dumping ol 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 ol 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 ol 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 uhder consideration originating in or exported from the subject countries and to recommend the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty, which il levied' would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. J. PROCEDURE 34.

or exported from the subject countries and to recommend the appropriate amount of anti-dumping duty, which il levied' would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. J. PROCEDURE 34. The provisions stipulated in Rule 6 ol the Anti-Dumping Rules shall be lollowed 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 pariies shalt be uploaded on the SETU portal under their registered name and corresponding SEfU Case lD no. No - ADlOV016l2026. lt 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 lndia, and the importers and users in lndia who are known to be associated with the product under consideration are being informed separately to enable them to Iile all the relevant information within the time limits mentioned in this initiation notification. All such inlormation 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. 37.

tiation notification. All such inlormation 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. 37. Any other interested party may also make a submission relevant to the present invlstigation in the form and manner as prescribed by this initiation notilication' 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 conlidential submission before the Authority is required to ,"i" " -non-"onfidential version of the same available to the other interested parties. 39. The interested parties are further advised to keep a regular watch on the. oflicial website of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies at www.dgtr.gov.in and sETU portal (https://setu.dgtr.gov.in) lor any updated information with respect to this investigation. lnterestea pirties are directed to regularly visit the website .of DGTR (h1p;//www.dgtr.gov.in/) to stay apprised with the further developments in the subjeci investigatLn ind remain inlormed regarding notices that may be issued from time to time regarding questionnaire formals, PCN methodology' PCN discussion/meeting schedule, notice of oral hearing, corrigendum, amendment notifications, and other such inlormation.

issued from time to time regarding questionnaire formals, PCN methodology' PCN discussion/meeting schedule, notice of oral hearing, corrigendum, amendment notifications, and other such inlormation.

6/ 17 /?a26-DGTR l/13'1374/2o2a 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 conesponding case lD - AD/OI/01612026. 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 domestlc 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, lg95_ lf no information is received within the stipulated time limit or the information received is incomplete, the Authority may record its findings based on the facls 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 lile their questionnaire responses r,riithin the above time limit as stipulated in this notification through SETU portal only. 43. The 1s-day period to fire comments on the scope of the pUC/ pcN Methodology shall run concurrently with the time limit mentioned in para 41 above of flis lnitiation Notilication. 44.

portal only. 43. The 1s-day period to fire comments on the scope of the pUC/ pcN Methodology shall run concurrently with the time limit mentioned in para 41 above of flis lnitiation Notilication. 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 pLiC, and PCN that was not previously proposed or is dillerent from the initiation notification. This extension of 15 days shall be granted from date of such notification of modified PUC and PCN. Extension ol time by 15 days stated in this paragraph is nol applicable in instances where there is no change in the pUC, anA pCru methodology after initiation ol investigation. Requesti lor a lurther extension of time, beyond the 1S-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. 46. where any party to the present investigation makes conridentiar submissions or provides information on a conridentiar basis before the Authority, such party is required to simultaneously submit a non-confidential version of suih inlormation 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.

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 (incruding Appendices/ Annexures attached thereto), belore the Authority incruding questionnaire responses, are required to file confidential and non-conf idential versions separately. 48. such submissions must be clearly marked as 'confidential' or ,non-conf idential, at thetop of each page. Any submission that has been made to the Authority withoui such markings shall be treated as 'non-conf idential' information by the Authority, and the Authority shall be at liberty to allow other interested partiesio inspect such submissions. 45. Any request for an extension must be submitted by the concerned parties through the SETU portar at reast one day before the original deadline specilied abov-e. Requests submitted after this tjme will not be considered. [/. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONFIDENTIAL BASIS

through the SETU portar at reast one day before the original deadline specilied abov-e. Requests submitted after this tjme will not be considered. [/. SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONFIDENTIAL BASIS

6/tf /20?5-OG"|R l/131174/?O26 49. The confidential version shall contain all information which is, by nature, confidential, and/or other information, which the supplier ol 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 wiih the supplied inlormation as to why such information cannot be disclosed' 50. The non-confidential version of the information filed by the interested parties is required to be a replica ol the confidential version with the confidential information preferably indexed or blanked out (where indexation is not possible) and such inlormation must be appropriately and adequately summarized depending upon the information on which conf identiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding ol the substance of the information furnished on a confidential basis.

hich conf identiality is claimed. The non-confidential summary must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding ol the substance of the information furnished on a confidential basis. However, in exceptional circumstances, the party submitting the conlidential inlormation may indicate that such information is not susceptible to summary, and a statement of reasons containing a suflicient 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 ofier their comments on the issues of confidentiality within 7 days fiom the date of circulation of the non-conf idential version oi the documents. 52. The Authority may accept or reiect the request tor confidentiality on examination of the nature oi the inlormation submitted. lf the Authority is satislied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or if the supplier ol the information is either unwilling to mike the information public or to authorize its disclosure in generalized or summary form, it may disregard such inlormation' ss. iny submission made without a meaninglul non-confidential version thereof or a sufficient and adequate cause statemenl in terms ol 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.

nl in terms ol 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-conlidential versions of submissions made by any interested party Y[!.9 accessible to other interested parties through their respective login on the SETU portal. O. NON-COOPERATION 55.lncaseanyinterestedpartyrefusesaccesstoandotherwisedoesnotprovide

necessary inlormation 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 iinOings naieO on the lacts available and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit. (Amitabh Kumar) Designated Authority

5 /17 /2026-DGTR Digitally signed by Amitabh Kumar Date: 22-06-2026 17:59:15 l/131374/2026