Anti-dumping review upheld product scope, domestic industry definition, and import injury findings on evidence of market competition.

Anti-dumping review upheld the scope of the subject goods after the record showed metallurgical coke was assessed by physical, chemical and tariff characteristics, and no legally sustainable basis existed to exclude coke with higher or lower ash content. Captive-consumption producers were validly excluded from the domestic industry because their production was for internal use, not commercial competition with imports, and their economics differed from sales-oriented producers. Injury and causal link were also sustained, as the evidence showed increased imports, greater import share, price undercutting and price underselling, while alternative causes did not displace the import-related injury findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scope of the subject goods in the anti-dumping notification required exclusion of metallurgical coke with higher or lower ash content; (ii) whether captive-consumption producers were rightly excluded while identifying the domestic industry; (iii) whether the finding of injury and causal link between imports and injury was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the scope of the subject goods in the anti-dumping notification required exclusion of metallurgical coke with higher or lower ash content.

Analysis: The product under consideration was examined on the basis of its physical and chemical characteristics, manufacturing process, functions, uses, product specifications and tariff classification. The record showed that metallurgical coke with ash content above 15% and below 12.5% was being used and supplied in the market, and that the domestic industry had produced and supplied coke of comparable descriptions. The evidence did not support any legally sustainable exclusion from the scope of the subject goods.

Conclusion: The scope of the subject goods was correctly determined, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether captive-consumption producers were rightly excluded while identifying the domestic industry.

Analysis: The domestic industry was confined to producers marketing or selling metallurgical coke, while producers manufacturing mainly for captive use were treated as a separate category because their production was not in competition with imported subject goods and their economics differed materially from sales-oriented producers. The exclusion of captive producers was supported by the evidence on record and by the statutory concept of the relevant domestic industry.

Conclusion: The exclusion of captive-consumption producers was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding of injury and causal link between imports and injury was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed a substantial increase in imports during the relevant period, increase in import share relative to production and consumption, and evidence of price undercutting and price underselling. The authority had also considered alternative causes suggested by the appellant and found them insufficient to displace the import-related injury findings. The causal link was therefore established on the evidence.

Conclusion: The findings of injury and causal link were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The anti-dumping notification was sustained and the appeal was rejected following the earlier detailed determination on identical issues.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping review, the scope of subject goods, the composition of the domestic industry, and injury findings will be upheld where they are supported by evidence of product comparability, commercially relevant domestic production, and a demonstrated import-related causal link.

---