No Purchase Of Coal From Russia After April 20 Announcement, Says Tata Steel

A deal for supply of 75,000 tonne of PCI coal was finalised in March 2022 and the contract became effective weeks before Tata Steel’s April announcement

Tata Steel in a statement on Wednesday said that it has not made any purchase of Pulverised Coal Injection (PCI) coal from Russia after its April announcement of severing business ties with Russia amid the ongoing war with Ukraine.

Tata Steel on April 20 had said it would stop doing business with Russia. To ensure business continuity, all its steel manufacturing sites in India, the UK, and the Netherlands have sourced alternative supplies of raw materials to end its dependence on Russia.

"Tata Steel would like to issue a clarification in view of the incorrect information floating around in some sections of the media with respect to the buying/ importing of coal from Russia," the spokesperson said.

A deal for supply of 75,000 tonne of PCI coal was finalised in March 2022 and the contract became effective weeks before Tata Steel’s April announcement.

The shipment was received in May 2022 to honour the business commitment made before the announcement.

“Post the announcement, Tata Steel has not made any fresh purchase of PCI coal from Russia. As a responsible corporate, we have and will continue to remain committed to our stated stance and resulting obligations,” the spokesperson said.

The pulverised coal is used by steelmakers in the blast furnace (BF) as an auxiliary fuel. PCI is a process that involves injecting large volumes of fine coal particles into the raceway of the BF.

On the other hand, Thyssenkrupp and Tata Steel lost their fight on Wednesday against a European Union anti-trust veto of their proposed landmark joint venture three years ago, after Europe's second-highest court rejected their arguments, Reuters reported.

The companies had sought to tackle over-capacity and other challenges in the steel industry via the joint venture but the European Commission said the deal could result in price hikes.

The EU competition enforcer in its 2019 decision said the companies had not offered sufficient remedies to address such concerns, forcing it to block the deal and the companies to challenge the finding at the Luxembourg-based General Court.