India locks in five-year anti-dumping duties on low ash metallurgical coke from six countries, deepening a public rift between its steel and finance ministries.
NEW DELHI, July 28, 2026 – India has imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of low ash metallurgical coke from six countries for a period of five years, closing out a sixteen-month trade remedy process that has divided the government and unsettled one of the most important raw material supply chains in the global steel industry. The Ministry of Finance published Notification No. 18/2026-Customs (ADD) in the Gazette of India on July 27, converting provisional duties that took effect at the end of last year into a definitive regime covering shipments from Australia, China, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan and Russia. The measure, recorded by the monitoring platform Global Trade Alert as intervention 149365, applies to low ash metallurgical coke with ash content below 18 percent, classified under HS heading 2704 and its subheadings 2704.00.10, 2704.00.20, 2704.00.30 and 2704.00.90.
The definitive duties range from 42.95 US dollars per tonne on Japanese material to 128.83 dollars per tonne on Chinese cargoes, according to the notification published in the Gazette of India. Crucially for importers, the duties apply retroactively from December 31, 2025, the date on which provisional duties first took effect. Because the final rates came in below the provisional rates for every named origin, importers that cleared cargoes over the past seven months at the higher provisional levels are positioned to claim refunds of the difference, a mechanical but commercially meaningful feature of India’s trade remedy system.
The decision lands amid an unusually open disagreement inside the Indian government. The Ministry of Steel has formally asked the Ministry of Finance to remove the anti-dumping duties altogether, according to reporting by market research firm IndexBox, arguing that domestic supply of low ash metallurgical coke is insufficient to meet demand and that domestic prices are too high for steelmakers to absorb. The Finance Ministry’s decision to proceed with definitive measures over those objections signals that, for now, the protection of domestic coke producers has prevailed over the cost concerns of the much larger steel sector that consumes their output.
For global coke and coking coal traders, the notification resolves one uncertainty and creates several new ones. The five-year duration gives the market a fixed legal framework, but the wide spread between country rates, the import surge recorded under provisional duties, and continuing pressure for relief all suggest that trade flows into the world’s second-largest steel producing nation will keep shifting.
The Final Duties
The definitive schedule, as published in the Gazette of India, sets country-wide duties in US dollars per tonne as follows: Australia at 71.16, China at 128.83, Colombia at 118.55, Indonesia at 67.50, Japan at 42.95 and Russia at 84.16. The rates reflect the dumping and injury margins calculated by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies over the course of its investigation, and they preserve the broad hierarchy established at the provisional stage, with Chinese and Colombian material facing the steepest charges and Japanese coke the lightest.
Every origin received at least some relief relative to the provisional duties imposed on December 31, 2025 under Notification No. 41/2025-Customs (ADD). The provisional rates were 73.55 dollars per tonne for Australia, 130.66 for China, 119.51 for Colombia, 82.75 for Indonesia, 60.87 for Japan and 85.12 for Russia. For most countries the adjustment is marginal, amounting to a dollar or two per tonne for China, Colombia and Russia and just over two dollars for Australia. The changes for Indonesia and Japan are far more substantial and are likely to alter commercial calculations.
Indonesia’s definitive rate of 67.50 dollars per tonne represents a reduction of more than 15 dollars, or roughly 18 percent, from its provisional level of 82.75 dollars, and it now sits below Australia’s rate, making Indonesian coke the second cheapest duty-paid option among the six named origins. Japan’s cut is even sharper in proportional terms, falling from 60.87 dollars to 42.95 dollars per tonne, a reduction of nearly 30 percent that cements Japan’s position as the lowest-duty supplier within the measure. In a market where met coke prices are often quoted in the low hundreds of dollars per tonne, a duty differential of more than 85 dollars per tonne between Japanese and Chinese material is large enough to redraw the sourcing map on its own.
The retroactive application creates immediate administrative work on both sides of the customs counter. Because the definitive duty applies from December 31, 2025, the date the provisional measures entered into force, the duty liability for the intervening period is recalculated at the final rates. Where importers deposited provisional duties in excess of the definitive amounts, which is the case for all six origins, the standard mechanics of Indian anti-dumping law provide for refund of the differential. Importers of Indonesian and Japanese coke stand to recover the largest per-tonne amounts, and given the volume of material that moved during the first half of the year, the aggregate refund claims across the trade could be considerable.
From Investigation to Imposition
The case, registered as AD(OI)-03/2025, was initiated on March 29, 2025 by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies, the investigating arm of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry that handles India’s trade remedy caseload. The petition came from the Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers’ Association, filing on behalf of domestic producers who argued that dumped imports from the six countries were undercutting their prices and injuring the domestic industry. Metallurgical coke is the essential fuel and reducing agent charged into blast furnaces to convert iron ore into pig iron and, ultimately, steel, which makes the product a strategic input for the entire ferrous chain.
The DGTR moved from initiation to provisional measures in nine months, with the Ministry of Finance giving effect to the preliminary findings through Notification No. 41/2025-Customs (ADD) on December 31, 2025. The definitive notification of July 27, 2026 completes the process within the statutory timeline and fixes the measures in place for five years, the standard duration for definitive anti-dumping duties, subject to review. Global Trade Alert, which tracks state interventions affecting commerce worldwide, logged the definitive imposition as intervention number 149365, adding it to a lengthening record of Indian trade defense activity in steelmaking raw materials.
The duty is not an isolated act but the latest step in a multi-year protection effort for India’s merchant coke industry. Before the anti-dumping case, India operated six-month quantitative import caps on metallurgical coke, quota restrictions designed to limit inbound volumes and shore up domestic coke makers, as reported at the time by Reuters and Deccan Herald. Those caps drew similar complaints from steel producers, underlining how persistent the tension between coke makers and coke consumers has become. The anti-dumping duty, with its five-year horizon, extends and hardens that protective posture well beyond the temporary reach of the quotas.
A Ministry Divided
Few trade remedy cases expose a policy fault line as starkly as this one. According to IndexBox reporting, the Ministry of Steel has formally requested that the Ministry of Finance withdraw the anti-dumping duties on low ash metallurgical coke. The Steel Ministry’s position, as reported, rests on two arguments: that domestic production of low ash met coke is simply insufficient to cover the requirements of the country’s expanding steel and pig iron industries, and that domestic coke prices are too high, imposing costs that ripple through the steel value chain. Such open friction between arms of government is rare in Indian trade policy.
The steelmakers’ complaints are not abstract. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, the state-run steel producer, has reported an increase of about 20 percent in its input costs, linked to the difficulty of procuring sufficient metallurgical coke at domestic prices, according to the IndexBox reporting. That a government-owned mill is absorbing cost inflation traceable to a government-imposed trade measure captures the contradiction at the heart of the policy. The company’s experience has become a reference point in the internal debate over who bears the burden of protection.
On the other side stands the domestic coke industry that brought the case. The Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers’ Association petitioned the DGTR on behalf of producers who invested in coke oven capacity and found themselves competing against imports they alleged were dumped. From their perspective, the investigation followed due process, the DGTR found dumping and injury sufficient to justify provisional and then definitive measures, and the Finance Ministry acted on those findings. Trade remedy law answers a narrow question about unfair pricing and injury, not downstream input costs, and by that standard the coke makers prevailed.
The Finance Ministry’s decision to notify definitive duties despite the Steel Ministry’s formal objection suggests that the government was unwilling to overturn the outcome of a quasi-judicial process midstream. It does not necessarily mean the debate is over. India’s trade remedy framework allows for mid-term reviews when circumstances change, and the Steel Ministry’s documented opposition, combined with hard data on costs and supply shortfalls, provides ready ammunition for any future review petition before the DGTR.
Economic Impact
The most striking feature of the market’s behavior under the provisional duties is that imports did not fall. They rose sharply. According to data from GMK Center, India’s imports of metallurgical coke in the first half of 2026 climbed 44 percent year on year to 2.9 million tonnes, even though provisional duties were in force for the entire period. The consultancy attributes the surge to the persistent price advantage of imported material even after duty, the superior and more consistent quality of foreign coke, and the underlying growth of Indian steel and pig iron output, which lifted total coke demand faster than domestic ovens could respond.
That import surge carries two implications for the policy debate. First, it lends weight to the Steel Ministry’s argument that domestic supply is structurally inadequate: if Indian coke makers could satisfy demand at competitive prices, buyers would not be paying duties of 43 to 131 dollars per tonne to bring in foreign material. Second, it means the duty is functioning less as a barrier that excludes imports and more as a tax that raises the cost base of Indian iron and steel production. The revenue flows to the exchequer, the price umbrella benefits domestic coke sellers, and the bill lands with the mills, foundries and, eventually, steel consumers.
The distribution of that bill is uneven. The clearest winners are India’s merchant coke producers and independent coke oven operators, the constituency represented by the petitioning association. The duties give them pricing headroom against the six largest foreign suppliers and a five-year window in which to invest, expand and improve quality. Integrated steel producers with captive coke oven batteries are relatively insulated on the coke side, since they convert imported or domestic coking coal into coke within their own plants, though they remain exposed to the broader tightness the measure creates in the merchant market when their captive output falls short.
The clearest losers are blast furnace steelmakers without sufficient captive coke capacity, along with small and medium foundries and merchant pig iron producers who buy coke from commercial suppliers. Industry assessments cited in the IndexBox reporting identify these smaller buyers as the most exposed segment, because they lack the scale to build captive coke ovens, the leverage to negotiate favorable domestic supply contracts, and the balance sheets to absorb an increase in fuel costs of the magnitude Rashtriya Ispat Nigam has reported. For foundry clusters operating on thin margins, that cost rise can be the difference between profit and loss.
The stakes are magnified by India’s ambitions. The country is the world’s second-largest steel producer, with national plans to expand crude steel capacity toward 300 million tonnes by 2030, and every incremental blast furnace commissioned under that program will need reliable, affordable low ash coke. Coke availability and cost are therefore strategic variables in Indian industrial policy, and a five-year duty regime that raises the cost of imported coke sits in visible tension with a capacity drive that depends on cheap inputs.
Implications for Steelmakers and Global Suppliers
For the six named exporting countries, the definitive rates create a clear pecking order. Japan, at 42.95 dollars per tonne, holds the lowest duty and gains a relative advantage over every other named origin, particularly after the sharp reduction from its provisional rate. Indonesia, at 67.50 dollars, and Australia, at 71.16 dollars, occupy the middle ground. Russia faces 84.16 dollars, Colombia 118.55 dollars, and China, at 128.83 dollars per tonne, carries the heaviest burden, a rate roughly three times Japan’s. All else being equal, Indian buyers now have a duty-driven incentive to shift purchases toward Japanese and Indonesian material and away from Chinese and Colombian cargoes.
Origin switching is the standard market response to differentiated anti-dumping duties, and it can occur along two axes. Within the six named countries, the spread of nearly 86 dollars per tonne between the cheapest and most expensive duty invites buyers to rebalance toward the low-duty end, subject to quality specifications, freight economics and available export surpluses. Beyond the six, suppliers not named in the measure face no anti-dumping duty at all, and market participants have pointed to origins such as Poland as potential beneficiaries able to capture demand priced out of Chinese or Colombian hands, a diversion effect that often erodes a duty’s practical protection.
For Indian steelmakers, the cost consequences feed directly into competitiveness. Coke is among the largest single cost items in blast furnace ironmaking, and a duty that adds tens of dollars per tonne to purchased coke raises the cost of every tonne of pig iron and crude steel produced from it. Mills serving the domestic market may pass some of that through to construction, automotive and engineering customers. Exporters have less room to maneuver, because they sell into international markets against producers in China, Japan, Southeast Asia and elsewhere whose coke costs are not inflated by Indian duties. The measure therefore risks taxing Indian steel exports at exactly the moment the industry is trying to grow its global footprint.
There is also a second-order effect on the coking coal trade. Because the duty applies to coke under HS heading 2704 and not to the coal used to make it, the measure strengthens the economics of converting coal to coke inside India rather than buying finished coke abroad. Steelmakers may respond by expanding captive coke oven capacity fed by imported coking coal, and merchant coke producers gain a stronger case for new investment. Over the duty’s life, that substitution could gradually shift India’s import mix from coke toward coking coal, favoring seaborne coal exporters over merchant coke exporters.
Global suppliers must also weigh the demonstrated resilience of Indian demand. The 44 percent jump in first-half imports reported by GMK Center shows that Indian buyers will pay duties when domestic material falls short, meaning the six named origins are handicapped rather than locked out. The competitive battle will now be fought on delivered, duty-paid cost per tonne, and the new schedule has changed every entrant’s arithmetic.
Retroactivity, Refunds and Review Mechanics
The retroactive features of the notification deserve close attention from importers and their customs brokers. The definitive duty applies from December 31, 2025, which means the entire period of provisional measures is now governed by the final rates. Since the definitive rates are lower than the provisional rates for all six origins, importers who paid provisional duties are entitled to refunds of the excess. The per-tonne differentials are modest for Australian, Chinese, Colombian and Russian material, in the range of roughly one to two and a half dollars, but they reach about 15.25 dollars per tonne for Indonesian coke and nearly 18 dollars per tonne for Japanese coke.
Applied across the 2.9 million tonnes that GMK Center reports entered India in the first half of 2026, even blended differentials imply refund claims worth millions of dollars in aggregate, concentrated among importers of Japanese and Indonesian material. Recovering those amounts requires documentation of duty payments during the provisional period and formal refund applications through the customs system, a process that can be slow and evidence-intensive, which argues for prompt reconciliation of entry records by affected importers.
The five-year duration is likewise not as immutable as it appears. Indian trade remedy law permits mid-term reviews of definitive duties when there is evidence of changed circumstances, and it requires a sunset review before any extension beyond the initial term. The documented opposition of the Ministry of Steel, the reported 20 percent input cost increase at Rashtriya Ispat Nigam, and the import surge data together form a plausible factual basis for a future review petition from the user industry. Conversely, if imports continue to grow despite the duties, domestic coke producers could seek their own remedies, arguing that the measures are being undermined. Both directions of review are live possibilities over the measure’s life.
Outlook
The immediate question is whether the definitive duties will do what the provisional duties did not: slow the flow of foreign coke into India. The first-half data suggest skepticism is warranted. With Indian steel and pig iron output growing, domestic low ash coke supply constrained, and the duty now marginally lower than the provisional rates for every origin, the fundamental drivers of the import surge remain in place. If second-half volumes hold anywhere near the first-half pace, the measure will look increasingly like a revenue and redistribution instrument rather than an effective barrier, and the pressure for policy correction will grow.
Traders and analysts should watch several indicators over the coming quarters. The monthly origin mix of Indian coke imports will reveal how quickly buyers rotate toward Japan and Indonesia and whether non-named origins such as Poland pick up displaced Chinese and Colombian volumes. The pace of refund processing will signal how smoothly the retroactivity mechanics are working. Any formal review filing before the DGTR would reopen the case. And any revival of quantitative caps alongside the duties, a combination India has used before, would tighten the market far more abruptly than the duties alone.
The deeper story is the unresolved contest between two legitimate industrial policy goals. India wants a viable domestic coke industry, and it wants globally competitive steel production on the way to 300 million tonnes of capacity by 2030. The Gazette notification of July 27 answers the first goal for five years. The Steel Ministry’s formal dissent, the cost data from state-owned mills, and the stubborn import statistics all testify that the second goal remains unpaid for. How New Delhi balances that ledger, through reviews, refunds, new capacity or quiet policy reversal, will shape the metallurgical coke trade across the Indo-Pacific for the rest of the decade.