&w=3840&q=100)
AM/NS India Q1 results: Ebitda down 67.6% to $101 mn, sales drop 20.2%
ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India (AM/NS India) on Wednesday reported a 67.6 per cent drop in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (Ebitda) at $101 million in the January-March quarter from $312 million last year. This was due to lower steel shipments and unfavourable market conditions.
Sequentially, Ebitda was 24.1 per cent lower from $133 million in the December quarter.
Sales during the quarter stood at $1.45 billion, down 20.2 per cent from the year-ago period at $1.81 billion. The company said that sales decreased by 8.6 per cent from $1.6 billion in the previous quarter primarily due to a 12 per cent decline in steel shipments.
Shipments were impacted by planned maintenance and unfavourable market conditions which have been subsequently addressed by safeguard measures, it added.
Steel shipments in the quarter were at 1.88 million tonne (mt), falling 6.6 per cent lower than the year-ago period. Steel production at 1.68 mt was down by 15.1 per cent a year back.
ArcelorMittal said the first phase of AM/NS India's expansion at Hazira to 15 mt was 'on track' with completion expected by the end of 2026.
Further plans were under development to build a 2.5 mtpa compact strip production mill to increase Hazira production capacity to 18 mtpa, the company said.
ArcelorMittal, the world's second largest steelmaker, reported quarterly Ebitda of $1.58 billion, down 19.2 per cent from the year-ago period at $1.96 billion.
Sales of $14.8 billion were lower than $16.28 billion last year. Steel shipments at 13.6 mt was near-flat compared to 13.5 mt in the same period last year.
The global steelmaker cautioned about trade disruptions. In a statement, ArcelorMittal's Chief Executive Officer, Aditya Mittal, said heightened uncertainty around the terms of global trade is hurting business confidence and risks causing further economic disruption if not quickly resolved.
However, he said, it was encouraging that governments around the world were committed to supporting their domestic manufacturing industries.
"In the US, Section 232 tariffs are supporting higher prices and spreads, and in Europe the Steel and Metals Action Plan is a much needed and important signal that Europe will take action to support strategically important industries like steel from unfair competition,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
15 hours ago
- Economic Times
US tariffs are as dangerous as they are illegal
AP US President Donald Trump It's hard to believe US trade policy could get any more confused and confusing, but somehow it has. Last week's court ruling deeming many of the tariffs levied by the White House to be illegal has only deepened the uncertainty confronting US companies and trading clear, however, is that the decision hasn't deflected the administration from its goal of remaking the global trading system. That's a job for Congress, which ought to reassert its authority over trade policy. The hitherto obscure US Court of International Trade, mainly devoted to litigating customs disputes, found the White House was wrong to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in support of its 'Liberation Day' tariffs. The judges noted that, according to the government's own lawyers, the tariffs were intended to create leverage against trading partners — a purpose that hardly supports the claim that the country is facing an emergency, as the law crucial constitutional question — whether, for trade-policy purposes, the White House can declare a 'national emergency' and then adopt remedies however it chooses — is far from settled. An appeals court has paused the May 28 ruling while it considers the arguments. In due course, presumably, the Supreme Court will decide. But rest assured there'll be no resumption of trade as usual while this argument is hashed a start, officials have many other trade-policy tools to use in place of IEEPA. Even if the new ruling stands, the outlook for tariffs might not change very much. So-called Section 301 tariffs on many imports from China, intended to address violations of existing trade agreements, remain in force. Likewise, Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars — supposedly to address national-security threats — and Section 201 tariffs on solar panels, designed to 'safeguard' domestic industries from 'serious injury.' The administration, which has already announced a doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs, could widen the scope of all these sanctions. It might also turn to the 1974 Trade Act's Section 122, which authorizes 'temporary' tariffs to deal with 'large and serious' balance-of-payments the administration's leverage in negotiations will likely be weakened. Talks with China already seem paralyzed. The tariff pauses previously announced might have to be extended, and trade partners will be under less pressure to cut a deal. (The UK, one of the first to settle, already has one. The court's ruling may void it, because it leaves a so-called baseline IEEPA tariff in place.)Another distraction: Companies might sue to recover some of the tariffs they've already paid, if those measures are ultimately confirmed to be unlawful. If the idea was to maximize the uncertainty under which US producers are obliged to operate, crushing investment, destroying consumer confidence and lining the pockets of trade-policy litigators, it would be difficult to do better than this. The blame rests not just with the White House but also with Congress. For years, lawmakers have abdicated their responsibility under the Constitution to oversee tariffs, which fall under their taxing powers. On trade and fiscal policy alike, lawmakers should start doing their jobs — and the administration should choose cooperation and prosperity over trade war. The current chaos benefits no one, least of all the US.
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Time of India
US tariffs are as dangerous as they are illegal
Live Events You Might Also Like: Donald Trump warns: Economic ruination of the US is coming if... (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of Bloomberg. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of It's hard to believe US trade policy could get any more confused and confusing, but somehow it has. Last week's court ruling deeming many of the tariffs levied by the White House to be illegal has only deepened the uncertainty confronting US companies and trading clear, however, is that the decision hasn't deflected the administration from its goal of remaking the global trading system. That's a job for Congress, which ought to reassert its authority over trade hitherto obscure US Court of International Trade , mainly devoted to litigating customs disputes, found the White House was wrong to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in support of its 'Liberation Day' tariffs. The judges noted that, according to the government's own lawyers, the tariffs were intended to create leverage against trading partners — a purpose that hardly supports the claim that the country is facing an emergency, as the law crucial constitutional question — whether, for trade-policy purposes, the White House can declare a 'national emergency' and then adopt remedies however it chooses — is far from settled. An appeals court has paused the May 28 ruling while it considers the arguments. In due course, presumably, the Supreme Court will decide. But rest assured there'll be no resumption of trade as usual while this argument is hashed a start, officials have many other trade-policy tools to use in place of IEEPA. Even if the new ruling stands, the outlook for tariffs might not change very much. So-called Section 301 tariffs on many imports from China, intended to address violations of existing trade agreements, remain in force. Likewise, Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars — supposedly to address national-security threats — and Section 201 tariffs on solar panels, designed to 'safeguard' domestic industries from 'serious injury.'The administration, which has already announced a doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs, could widen the scope of all these sanctions. It might also turn to the 1974 Trade Act's Section 122, which authorizes 'temporary' tariffs to deal with 'large and serious' balance-of-payments the administration's leverage in negotiations will likely be weakened. Talks with China already seem paralyzed. The tariff pauses previously announced might have to be extended, and trade partners will be under less pressure to cut a deal. (The UK, one of the first to settle, already has one. The court's ruling may void it, because it leaves a so-called baseline IEEPA tariff in place.)Another distraction: Companies might sue to recover some of the tariffs they've already paid, if those measures are ultimately confirmed to be unlawful. If the idea was to maximize the uncertainty under which US producers are obliged to operate, crushing investment, destroying consumer confidence and lining the pockets of trade-policy litigators, it would be difficult to do better than blame rests not just with the White House but also with Congress. For years, lawmakers have abdicated their responsibility under the Constitution to oversee tariffs, which fall under their taxing powers. On trade and fiscal policy alike, lawmakers should start doing their jobs — and the administration should choose cooperation and prosperity over trade war . The current chaos benefits no one, least of all the US.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
India, US discuss metals tariff objection
India is bilaterally discussing with the US its claim at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that there is no basis for New Delhi's proposal to retaliate against the American tariffs on steel and aluminium, said an official. The issue will also be taken up in the India-US bilateral trade agreement (BTA) talks. "The US has said our proposal to retaliate is baseless and we are bilaterally discussing with them at WTO. It's being discussed in the BTA talks also," said the official. In early May, India proposed to levy retaliatory duties on 29 American products including apples, almonds, pears, anti-freezing preparations, boric acid and certain products made of iron and steel under the WTO to counter US tariffs on steel and aluminium. New Delhi told the WTO that these safeguard measures would affect $7.6 billion worth of imports into the US. However, the US refused to discuss the Section 232 tariffs under the Agreement on Safeguards as it does not view the tariffs as a safeguard measure. Section 232 authorises the US president to adjust imports of goods which can threaten to impair US national security. "Given this rejection, India now faces several options including launching a formal WTO dispute under broader GATT rules, challenging the Section 232 tariffs as disguised protectionist actions, arguing that the US is abusing the national security exception," said a Delhi-based trade expert. "This issue will be crucial in the India-US BTA trade talks," said the official. A team of US officials is visiting India this week for discussions on the proposed interim trade agreement between the two countries. The two aim to negotiate the first tranche or phase of a mutually beneficial, multi-sector BTA by fall this year and more than double the bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 from the current level of $191 billion. The two sides are likely to agree on an interim trade agreement by the end of June, with New Delhi pushing for full exemption from the 26% reciprocal tariff on domestic goods. On March 8, 2018, the US promulgated safeguard measures on certain steel and aluminium products by imposing 25% and 10% ad valorem tariffs respectively, effective March 23, 2018. On February 10, 2025, it revised the measures on imports of steel and aluminium articles, effective March 12. India said the US failed to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards on taking a decision to apply safeguard measures, and as an affected member with significant export interest, it has requested consultations with Washington. (The correspondent is in Paris at the invitation of the commerce and industry ministry)
