Anti-dumping duty on metallurgical coke sustained after product scope, captive industry exclusion, and injury findings were accepted.

Anti-dumping analysis on metallurgical coke confirmed that the product scope could include higher-ash and below 12.5% ash coke where technical and commercial substitutability, domestic supply patterns, and goods characteristics supported that treatment; tariff classification was only indicative. Captive producers were excluded from the domestic industry because the anti-dumping rules distinguish captive consumption from commercial sale. The injury and causal-link findings were sustained on evidence of import surge, price undercutting and underselling, and adverse injury indicators, with alternate causation arguments rejected. The anti-dumping duty and final findings were therefore maintained on all material issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the scope of the product under consideration was correctly confined and whether metallurgical coke with higher ash content or below 12.5% ash content was required to be excluded; (ii) whether captive producers could be excluded while determining the domestic industry; and (iii) whether the findings of injury and causal link supporting the anti-dumping duty were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the scope of the product under consideration was correctly confined and whether metallurgical coke with higher ash content or below 12.5% ash content was required to be excluded.

Analysis: The product scope was examined on the basis of evidence regarding technical and commercial substitutability, actual domestic production and supply, and the characteristics of the goods. The record showed that metallurgical coke with ash content between 15% and 18% was substitutable with lower-ash coke, that domestic producers supplied coke of varying ash content including below 12.5%, and that the tariff classification was only indicative. The Tribunal found no legal or factual infirmity in the Designated Authority's determination of the product scope.

Conclusion: The scope of the product under consideration was correctly determined and no exclusion was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether captive producers could be excluded while determining the domestic industry.

Analysis: The relevant anti-dumping rules require the domestic industry to be identified from producers engaged in commercial sale, and the evidence showed that captive producers operated in a different economic setting from market-oriented producers. The Tribunal accepted the distinction drawn by the Designated Authority between captive consumption and producers for sale, and held that the cited WTO materials did not displace the rule-based approach adopted in the investigation.

Conclusion: Captive producers were validly excluded from the domestic industry for the purpose of the investigation.

Issue (iii): whether the findings of injury and causal link supporting the anti-dumping duty were sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the Designated Authority's analysis showing a significant rise in imports from subject countries, price undercutting and underselling, and adverse effects on the domestic industry across injury parameters. The contention that losses were caused by other factors was rejected because the record showed that the import surge and price effects were sufficient to establish injury and causal connection.

Conclusion: The findings of injury and causal link were sustained and the anti-dumping duty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in full, and the anti-dumping duty notification and final findings were sustained on all material issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Designated Authority's determination of product scope, domestic industry, injury, and causal link is supported by recorded evidence and applies the anti-dumping rules correctly, appellate interference is unwarranted.

---