Ladies and gentlemen, good day and welcome to the Tata Steel analyst call. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All the attendees' audio and video has been disabled from the back end and will be enabled subsequently. I would now like to hand the conference over to Ms. Samita Shah. Thank you, and over to you, ma'am.
Yeah. Thank you, Kinshuk. Good morning, everybody. Good afternoon and good evening to others as well. On behalf of Tata Steel, I'm delighted to invite you all to this call today to discuss our results for the first quarter of FY 2025. I am joined by our CEO and MD, Mr. T.V. Narendran, and our ED and CFO, Mr. Koushik Chatterjee. We declared our results yesterday. There is a presentation as well on our website, which shares some more details about the financial and the operating performance. I hope you had a chance to go through both. Before I hand it over to them, I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that the entire discussions today will be covered by the safe harbor clause on page two of the presentation.
Thank you, and may I now request you, Naren, to make a few opening comments, please.
Thanks, Samita. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll make a few comments and then pass on to Koushik before we open it up for questions. During the quarter, the global steel demand across most regions was impacted by subdued economic activity and the tight monetary policy conditions. In China, the moderation and demand outpaced the production cuts, which led to steel exports of around 8-9 million tons a month to the rest of the world. In India, the steel demand was broadly stable, despite some impact of the elections and the heatwaves and the seasonal weakness that we experience, particularly once the monsoon sets in. As a result, across geographies, steel prices have been a bit soft. In the U.S. and E.U., steel prices were down 8%-15%.
Domestic steel prices were reasonably stable, but went down during the quarter. So the increases that we had in the early part of the quarter got offset by the reductions towards the later part of the quarter. The group steel production in India was 5.27 million tons and was up 5% year-on-year. This works out, on quarter-on-quarter, it was a 2% decline, primarily due to planned maintenance shutdowns. Our deliveries at 4.94 million tons were the best ever quarter one sales that we've had, which was aided by a 4% year-on-year growth in domestic deliveries. Among the various segments that we cater to, the automotive and special projects products volumes grew by 9% on a year-on-year basis, with higher-than-market growth in select subsegments.
Our well-established retail brand, Tata Tiscon, witnessed a 15% year-on-year growth, aided by enhanced reach and a focus on consumer connect programs. We now have more than 10,000 dealers, over 24,000 influencers, and a growing share of customers via our e-commerce portal, Aashiyana. We are looking to shape construction market practices through our ready-to-use solutions and now have over 30 construction centres across India to improve the customer experience and our ready-to-use solutions. Sales has actually gone up about 30% year-on-year. These are basically ready-to-use solutions in construction sites. We registered a 19% year-on-year growth in engineering goods, driven by the best of our quarterly supplies to railways, and an 8% year-on-year growth to the consumer durables industry, driven by product and market development with major OEMs.
We continue to be bullish on India as we have to leverage this opportunity via capacity expansion as well as downstream capabilities. At Kalinganagar, heating of the stove and the coke oven batteries has already commenced as per plan, and we are looking forward to the blast furnace startup towards the end of September. We are looking forward to producing about 1.7 million tons from this new facility after the startup in September. But as mentioned in the last quarter's earnings call, the G Blast Furnace in Jamshedpur will come in relining in the fourth quarter of this financial year. And as a result, the overall increase in volume will be lower, and that's why we've guided for the full year at 1.4 million tons for India.
The Continuous Annealing Line of the 2.2 million ton Cold Rolling Mill complex is planned to be commissioned in August, and the strip threading for the cold run is in progress. Separately, the rolling mill, which is being set up in Jamshedpur to leverage the upstream opportunity that we have in the steel assets of Usha Martin that we acquired. The downstream, the cold Combi Mill, as we call it, it's a 0.5 million ton Combi Mill at Jamshedpur, will come up in the second half of the year, and that will help us leverage the volumes available out of the Tata Steel, what we call Tata Steel Gamharia, which is the Usha Martin steel plant site, and also cater to the growing requirements of high quality long products for the auto industry.
In the U.K., we have safely ceased operations at one of the blast furnaces, which is the blast furnace number five at Port Talbot on the 4th of July. We are on track to close the remaining blast furnace, which is blast number four, by September 2024, and this marks an important milestone in our endeavor to transition the operations to a sustainable business model. As we navigate the transition, we are committed to supporting affected employees and are providing multiple training and community support schemes. In Netherlands, we've ramped up the production at Blast Furnace 6 after the relining. And we had quarterly steel production of 1.69 million tons, which was up quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year. The stabilization of operations has positively impacted the cost profile.
Koushik will talk about it further in his comments. The deliveries for the quarter, at 1.47 million tons, were higher by 3% quarter-over-quarter and 8% year-on-year. Sustainable operations are integral to our strategic goals, and we've adopted a multi-pronged approach to progress on this journey. In India, we are focused on process improvement, carbon direct avoidance, and carbon capture and utilization... We recently launched a carbon bank initiative to further carbon abatement and are undertaking relevant pilot projects in partnership with technology providers, academia, and startups. We are the first company in India to use LNG-powered Capes ize bulk carrier for transporting raw materials. I've already mentioned the transition plans for the U.K. Upon transition to scrap-based electric arc furnace operation, the direct CO2 emissions will reduce by 50 million tons over a decade.
Similarly, Netherlands, we are working on the transition to green steel, subject, of course, to the government support and necessary approvals, and currently, the discussions are going on with the government. Thank you, and over to you, Koushik.
Thank you, Naren. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to all who have joined in. I will begin the quarterly performance provided on slide 26. Our consolidated revenue stood at about INR 54,771 crore, and the consolidated EBITDA was about INR 6,822 crore, which translates into an EBITDA margin of around 12.5%. The consolidated EBITDA margin has improved by more than about, more than 100 basis points, on quarter-on-quarter basis, despite the global cues and the adverse trade conditions. Before I delve into the numbers across geographies, I would also like to mention that we have received sanction for the amalgamation of the Angul Energy Limited and the Bhubaneswar Power Limited, and the standalone financial statements for the quarter reflect the merger, and the past periods have been restated as applicable.
Onto the numbers, Tata Steel standalone EBITDA for the quarter was INR 6,750 crore, which translates to an EBITDA margin of about 20%. On a per ton basis, the standalone EBITDA was about INR 13,661 per ton. As provided on slide 32, the EBITDA on an absolute basis moved lower compared to the previous quarter, as the fourth quarter is typically a seasonally strong quarter. The volume effect weighed on the absolute revenues as well as on the conversion cost. However, this was by the lower material cost, primarily because of the decline in coking coal consumption costs, to the tune of about $11 per ton, and the change in the inventories quarter-over-quarter. I would like to elaborate a little bit about the cost.
There has been an increase in the valuation of chrome ore inventory as on 30th of June, 2024, and this is on account of increased accrual of royalty charges payable on closing stock. This has led to a non-cash credit of about INR 1,100 crore in the raw material cost line and an increase in the other expense line, which includes royalty-related expenses. So the above treatment is broadly P&L neutral. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited, or NINL, crude steel production was 0.25 million tons, and the EBITDA for the quarter was INR 279 crore. Within the two years of the acquisition of NINL, this has been the first time when we have got the positive PAT and are operating at the rated capacity.
In the Netherlands, the EBITDA has turned positive, with improved liquid steel production on a quarter-on-quarter basis upon stabilization of the operation, post the, issue in relation to the, Blast Furnace 6 relining. The EBITDA generated was GBP 43 million on first quarter, compared to a loss of GBP 27 million in the fourth quarter. EBITDA on a per ton basis improved by about 48, pounds per ton on a quarter-on-quarter. The turnaround was primarily driven by the improvements in cost. Material cost moved lower, primarily driven by the favorable movement in inventories and the lower purchase, despite the higher raw material cost. The conversion costs also moved lower upon decline in power and fuel and bulk gases related expenses, which improved the availability of, the by-product gases.
In the U.K., the EBITDA loss widened from about GBP 34 million in the last quarter to GBP 91 million in this quarter, and I'll explain that. The underlying performance, though, has actually improved on quarter-on-quarter. To elaborate this, on a reported basis, the revenue and materials have remained broadly stable, while conversion cost has increased by about GBP 81 million, GBP 81 per ton, resulting in a corresponding decline in the EBITDA level. However, as I stated in the last earnings call, the fourth quarter earnings included credit relating to emission rights and R&D spend of prior years, to the tune of about GBP 70 million. Excluding these one-offs, the underlying movement in conversion cost was favorable by about GBP 25 per ton, translating into an improvement in underlying EBITDA of around GBP 24 per ton on a quarter-on-quarter basis.
As Naren mentioned, we are committed to growth in India and have spent about INR 3,777 crore on capital expenditure during the quarter. Primarily spent on the Kalinganagar expansion, as well as we have started the spend on our EAF in Ludhiana. There was working capital buildup during the quarter, primarily driven on the basis of the buildup of stocks in the U.K. ahead of the closure of the heavy end facilities, among other factors, including seasonality in India. We are focused on the optimizing of the working capital. The net debt stands at about INR 82,162 crore, and our group liquidity remains strong at about INR 36,460 crore, which includes about INR 10,799 crore of cash and cash equivalents.
The closure of the heavy end assets and restructuring program at Port Talbot is progressing in a safe and controlled manner, as Naren mentioned, and this is as per plan, as we previously announced. The Blast Furnace five at Port Talbot produced its last liquid steel on 4th of July, and one of the three casters has suspended operations. The Blast Furnace four will cease operations before the end of September. We remain in close discussions with the union in relation to the support for the affected employees. Based on the enhanced support package we had discussed with them, we launched the voluntary redundancy aspiration process on 11th of July, and this will close on 7th of August.
After the elections in the U.K., we have also resumed our conversation and discussion with the new U.K. government on the execution of the grant funding agreement supporting the electric arc furnace project in Port Talbot. The Labour Party is already committed to delivering the GBP 500 million grant previously announced for Port Talbot. All parties appreciate the need to close the agreement as soon as possible. Upon closure of both the furnaces, the downstream in the U.K. will continue to service customers by utilizing imported slabs and hot-rolled coil substrate. In the Netherlands, we have started an active engagement with the Dutch government on potential support for the decarbonization project. The project is planned to be in two phases.
In phase one, we intend to replace one of the blast furnace with a DRI and an EAF, which is a direct reduced iron plant, by 2030. The DRI will initially run on natural gas and later transition into hydrogen as the availability and the cost of hydrogen becomes more competitive. We are committed to achieve about 35%-40% reduction in CO2 by 2030. Moving on finally to the legal development with respect to the Odisha case in India. There has been, as you know, the multiple litigations over time with respect to state's authority to levy tax on mineral rights.
On the 25th of July, the Supreme Court has ruled the states will have the power to levy tax on mineral rights, and the existing mineral legislation does not contain any limitation of such power at this point of time. After this judgment, based on the petitioner's request, the Supreme Court is looking at the ruling operative from the date of pronouncement and to clarify the aspects of operations of the judgment. Yesterday, the Supreme Court reserved a decision on this matter. The implications of the ruling are obviously complex, varied across states, and will have an effect on the mineral-linked industries in India. We await the orders of the Supreme Court. With this, I would end my comments and open the floor to questions. Thank you.
We will now begin with the question and answer session. We will be taking questions on audio and chat. To join the audio questions queue, please mention your full name and email ID in the chat box. Kindly stick to a maximum of two questions per participant and rejoin the queue, should you have a follow-up question. We will unmute your mic so that you can ask your question. To ask questions on chat, please type in your question along with your full name and email ID in the chat box. We will now wait for a moment as the queue assembles. The first question is from Satyadeep Jain of Ambit Capital. Satyadeep, please go ahead.
Hi, am I audible?
Yeah.
Am I audible?
Yes, please.
I thank you for the clarification, that more than-
You'll have to speak up. You'll have to speak up, Satyadeep.
Audible.
We can't hear him. Kinshuk, let's go to the next one, and we can come back to him.
No.
Sure, ma'am. We will now move on to the next question. Our next question is from Sumangal Nevatia of Kotak Securities. Sumangal, I request you to please go ahead and ask your question.
If we can share some details as to how are we looking at NSRs and cost movement both across India and Netherlands. And then with respect to U.K., is, are we looking at the last quarter as far as these losses are concerned? And do we still maintain that maybe from second half onwards, we will have some sort of a break even, as far as EBITDA is concerned? Yeah, that's my first question.
Yeah. Thanks, Sumangal. So as far as India is concerned, our guidance on net realizations for Q2 is about INR 1,500 per ton below Q1. And as far as U.K. is concerned, the projection is flat, but Netherlands is projecting a GBP 60 reduction in net realizations Q2 compared to Q1. In terms of coal costs, in India, it will be about consumption basis, $15 per ton lower in Q2 compared to Q1, and in Netherlands, it'll be about $26 per ton lower, Q2 compared to Q1. Coal is not really relevant now for U.K. going forward. In terms of iron ore, U.K. will be about $7 per ton lower, Q2 to Q1, and Netherlands will be about $17 per ton lower, Q2 compared to Q1.
Your question on Tata Steel U.K., yes, once we close the second blast furnace, in the second half of the year, at an operating level, we should be, close to a break even or slightly positive on an EBITDA basis, apart from the one-off costs that we may have to incur as part of the separation packages and other things. But on an operating basis, the losses that you see today, should go back to break even or should go to break even or get a positive EBITDA.
So I just-
To add on the-
Yeah.
when you said that will this be the last quarter of losses? The answer is no. The key, September will be the last quarter of the losses, and then, as Naren mentioned, from the third quarter, we should get to close to breakeven, and then as the volume ramps up on the imported substrate, we should be in positive territory.
Okay, so 2Q is the last quarter, right? I mean, third quarter is where we expect. Understood. Understood. And just this clarification on Netherlands, given the softness in prices and, which is only partly getting offset by iron ore and coal. So do we expect spreads to be under pressure at these levels? And does the 1Q margin, what we've reported, does it have any loss or, sorry, any cost of relining or everything kind of concluded in fourth quarter reported results?
No, from a CapEx point of view, you would, see some CapEx in Netherlands in Q1, which is more to do with the settling of the relining bills. From a margin point of view, we are basically operating at, pretty much full level. If you see the volumes on production, we are almost at 6.8 million ton annualized basis, so which is much higher than what we've ever been in the past, even before the relining. So there is clearly operational improvement and stability. But yes, there is, as I indicated, there will be some margin compression in Q2 because the markets across the world are struggling with Chinese exports at, pretty low prices.
But I think our expectation is, at the current levels of prices and coal prices, if you see even the Chinese companies are losing a lot of money, and so we do expect that, this could be the low point, and things could pick up from Q3 onwards, on terms of prices. Yeah.
Okay, Naren, just, just one clarification. You said CapEx, so there's no... At the operating results, it's, it's, there's no cost, right? There's no OpEx of relining in 1Q results.
No. I don't... Koushik, I don't think so, right? Yeah.
No, no. It's actually the relining got over. It's, as you know, that after the performance guarantee, the retention payment, those come in after a period of time. So that's there in the cash flows for this quarter and, as part of the CapEx, but not in the OpEx side. In fact, the other way around, the OpEx has actually been better than the previous quarter because the volumes have increased very significantly.
Understood. Understood. That's very clear. My second question is with, is with respect to the expansion plans. Now, we are on the verge of commissioning Kalinganagar, and we've been seeing this slide of 40 million ton kind of potential since long. I mean, looks like even if we start today, there would be a period, maybe 18- odd months, where we will run out of capacity and maybe start losing market share in India. So want to know what timelines are we looking at further finalizing the CapEx plan, number one, and, yeah, I think, yeah, that's the only question. Yes.
Yeah. So I think, the way I would respond to it is, you know, we have this 5 million tons coming in in Kalinganagar. You have all close to 1 million tons coming in Ludhiana. And we have maybe a few hundred thousand tons coming in in Jamshedpur because we are adding a rolling mill there, and we'll get some additional volumes out of the Usha Martin assets, that we acquired some time back. So that's the incremental volume you will see over the next couple of years. Later this year, we will hopefully, you know, get the approvals, internal approvals for the Neelachal expansion, which will take it to 5 million tons. The Kalinganagar expansion from eight to 13 was anyway expected to start only after we finish the current expansion. So, that we will plan for.
I also want to make a point when you talk of market share. Actually, the market share in our chosen segments will continue to be very strong because the Kalinganagar cold rolling mill adds 2 million tons of cold rolled, very high-end cold rolled and galvanized products to our product mix. And we have a few downstream expansions also going on parallelly. So I think in our chosen segments, we will continue to grow our market share. The overall market share, of course, will be a function of the upstream volumes that we get on the ground.
Understood. Understood. I'll join back the queue. Thank you so much for the answers.
Thank you so much. Our next question is from Kirtan Mehta of BOB Capital Markets. Kirtan, please go ahead.
Thank you, sir, for this opportunity. Wanted to understand sort of the new round of the U.K. discussions with the Labour Party. What, what are the additional demands that you are seeing from the Labour Party while sort of finalizing on the grant agreement?
Yeah, Koushik?
Yeah. So I think, first of all, I must say that the new government, the ministers, et cetera, have been very supportive in not only Tata Steel, but the Tata Group, to continue in a big manner in the U.K. Obviously, there's no demand as such. They want to work together to make the U.K. steel industry strong because they have plans in their capital allocation for usage of that industry in infrastructure and other industrial projects. Because as you if you have followed the election campaign and the manifesto on the Labour Party side, it's more about renewal of U.K. in terms of being more industrialized and focus on manufacturing, focus on renewable energy, and so on.
So I think the question is, essentially the, the negotiated grant funding agreement is ring-fenced in some manner. What they want is to explore more investment opportunities, if possible. That's not imposed, but if possible, and to explore what else do we need to make, the, the U.K. steel business more valuable and sustainable. So I think that's the broader context. As far as the, other thing is the employee bit, which is on essentially how can we help in, help in the training of the employees who are moving out of, Port Talbot, to make them more employable. As you know, there is a transition board that has been, formed under the previous government. That transition board is funded by about GBP 80 million by the U.K. government and GBP 20 million by us.
So the whole focus is, how do we best use this capital and do that? So those are the kind of conversations that we are having at this point of time, and we hope that in coming weeks, and maybe a month or two, we should be able to get to a frame where we have a good understanding of, on an agreement on where we want to move. And more important from our perspective, is to ensure that the base EAF project, which is the already approved project, gets on as per plan, and that ordering, detail engineering, et cetera, is something that we are coming very close to. So I think in a nutshell, we see continuity of our discussions with the U.K. government.
We see more interest in the steel industry from the U.K. government, and we see more capital allocated from the treasury on the steel industry as a whole.
Just a follow-up here. So if at all, the way you mentioned about this, there is a possibility of increasing the scope of the expansion. So if we go through that discussion, is there a sort of a possibility that this could elongate the time before we give a go-ahead for the next EAF?
For the on the new EAF, no. The answer is, as I said, that the current EAF and is something that we have already captured in the existing draft of the grant funding agreement, so that has not been disturbed. The proposition is what can you do more, and for which, how can we give you more? So, what can we do more and how much can we give you more, is what the conversation is. Our focus is obviously on getting the 3 million-ton transition into the electric arc furnace done on time, because that's the base case for the sustainability.
But there are other opportunities in the downstream, if there is a business case, if there is an investment case, and if the government provides us with support in capital, we will consider it, and that's the conversation that we are having at this point of time.
Thanks for this detailed clarification. Second question was about the contingent liability that we have disclosed regarding Odisha. Do we have similar demands across any other states which could have an impact from the Supreme Court judgment finalization, or Odisha is the only state which has raised such demands in the past?
No. First of all, I must give you a bit, and if you have read the notes in the SEBI, note number eight, this case actually, when the Odisha government did come out with the regulations on levying what is called as ORISED, we had gone into the Odisha High Court, and the Odisha High Court had actually squashed the regulation itself as unconstitutional. So there was no demand existing at this point of time from the Odisha government on us. But because there is a Act which had come in, which was squashed by the Odisha government, we had been reporting this as contingent liability since 2005. So I think it is a question which we did out of prudence to ensure proper disclosure.
There is no other direct cases or demands of this nature for Tata Steel at this point of time from any other government. Our bulk of our mining is in Odisha, and we have mining in Jharkhand, but at this point of time, there isn't anything that is pending as a demand which we have not paid or therefore we are reporting. We reported this as contingent liability based on the regulation that came into being in Odisha in 2004, which we challenged in the Odisha High Court, which got squashed, and that's why the state had gone to the Supreme Court, and many other such states had gone to the Supreme Court, which is the judgment that we has been talked about.
Right. And what was the underlying royalty rate under this particular contingent liability? When, what was the state demand, actually?
Again, there is no state demand. What was basically formulated is based on the last two years' production, and based on the IBM price on the first day of the year, there was a calculation given of about 15% or so. So that was the basis of the calculation that was given at the time in that act, which got squashed under the Odisha High Court order.
Thanks for this clear clarification. If I may squeeze in one more, could you update us on the cold-rolled rolling mill in terms of the operation levels, profitability levels, at what stage ramp up we are in, and what's remaining? ... We understood about the continuous annealing line that you just disclosed?
Yeah, the cold rolling mill has been operating since last year. It's been ramping up quite well. It produces what is called full hard cold rolled product till the annealing line comes in. The annealing line is coming in in August, then we'll have the anneal product available, and the galvanizing line will come in, towards the end of this, financial year, and that will give us a galvanized product. So the cold rolling mill in its entirety is best to assess after we have all the downstream facilities, because it is going to be really a state-of-the-art mill, which will be able to cater to, the high tensile grades which the automotive industry requires now, and also the high-end galvanized steel that the automotive industry requires now. So, so that's where it is.
So not able to give you the profitability just yet, because, not only are the volumes ramping up, the quality is also just about ramping up.
Production run rate, if possible?
I think, we are currently maybe at about 50,000-60,000 tons a month. You will not see it, simply because that means you will sell less, less HR and more full hard CR. So it's not a top-line addition. It is value addition. Let me put it that... You will see less 40,000-50,000 tons HR and more CR. Yeah.
Thank you for accommodating me.
Thanks.
Thank you, sir. Before we take the next question, I would like to inform the participants to please limit your audio questions to two per participant. Should you have a follow-up question, you are requested to rejoin the queue or post it in the chat box. The next question is from Amit Dixit of ICICI Securities. Amit, I request you to please go ahead.
Yeah, hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Am I audible?
Yes, yes, we are, we are able to hear you. If you can speak a bit louder.
Great. All right. Okay. So I have a couple of questions. The first one, on a very broad macro sense, if we look at it, while domestic consumption is growing, there are instances of, you know, imports also surging. On the other hand, there is now, after the Supreme Court judgment, technically state governments can levy any sort of cess they want. So, I just wanted to understand from an industry perspective, which is growing, you know, there is nothing being done to curb imports. At the same time, states are coming up, I mean, states technically have got freedom to levy any kind of, duty. So what we are thinking about, I mean, how we are looking at it, being, someone who is like, quite, you would say, integrated, aren't we at a technical disadvantage here? What are the thought process?
How are we working with the government? Just wanted to get your thought process around that.
Sure. So, Amit, I think it's a very valid point, and that's precisely the point you're making with the government. It would be very ironical if in India, with all the iron ore that it has, firstly, overtaxes the iron ore and negates the competitiveness that we as a country should have right at the raw material stage. Okay, so I think that is one thing, and we are, as it is, from a effective royalty rate and tax rate point of view, one of the highest taxed countries in the world as far as mining is concerned. You know, compared to Brazil, Australia, and the other geologically rich countries, we are already taxed amongst the highest. So that is one point.
I think if we do that, there is less and less incentive or less and less room to make investments, to value add on that iron ore, or coal, or bauxite, or whatever else, right? I think that is one point. The second point which we are telling the government is most of these minerals are in the poorest states in the country. Yes, they need tax revenues, but they also need jobs. And if you need jobs, then you need investments. If you need investments, there needs to be a business case, where the industry makes money and can, you know, use that money to invest in new capacities or whatever. Third point is, when you look at private sector investment in India, the steel industry is one of the leading sectors.
It's not just Tata Steel, all our peers have also announced significant CapEx. So, you know, you have a good story there on private sector CapEx, and if all this keeps going up, obviously, that's a matter of concern. The fourth point you talked on imports is also a very important point, because oftentimes we say China is competitive. China is not competitive. They lose money at these prices. So it's not that they are making money at these prices, in which case you can call them competitive. It's predatory pricing, which is again detrimental to the future of the industry in India. And this point is being made with the government as Indian Steel Association. And we are hoping that there will be some action because the rest of the world is moving fast on this.
So whether you look at the U.S., you look at EU, you look at many other countries, because China exporting 100 million tons a year is not something the world can live with. China selling steel at less than $500 when coking coal prices are $220-$230 defies the, you know, logic. And, the last time China sold at these prices was during COVID. So, you know, so we are seeing some circumstances where, like you said, import pressures are there and domestic cost pressures are also there, which is not good for the long-term health of the industry. So it's a very valid point. We are representing to the governments, at the states and the centres, and, let's hope that, we come to a good long-term solution.
On the similar line, you know, just one clarification, what Koushik mentioned, that there are no demands from state as such. Now, the retrospective or prospective application of this new judgment doesn't really matter. The thing is that, is there a possibility at this point in time, what you see, that, you know, states might just, you know, go ahead and levy something? Is there something in the pipeline, is there something that, they have been making demands in the, in the recent past that we might see our costs getting escalated? Retrospective, of course, doesn't matter. I'm not talking about that INR 17,000 crore liability. All I'm talking about going ahead, how will our cost increase in the present regime of things?
...So I think, yes, the states have that prerogative, and that's what has been now said. Again, the question is, I mean, I think, the question for the government, both at the centre and state, is what they want to do. At the centre, it's all about what are the laws which need to be amended? How do you address this issue? Can you offset some of this? Because I think the larger point being made is a lot of these costs will pass through, particularly when you look at coal, which is today the biggest product being mined, and the power sector is the one which consumes it. If, you know, these keep adding up, obviously it has an impact on the power sector and the consumers of power, including us, right? So that is one.
Secondly, there's bauxite and aluminum, there's iron ore and steel. I think this is a larger issue. I think the government is seized with it, and obviously it impacts the cost of doing business, which is very clear. Let's wait and see how the next few weeks transpires in terms of what states are doing what. Koushik, you want to add? Yeah.
Yeah. So I just wanted to add that, Amit, that all that the courts are, have said, the bench has said that as per the current MMDR is concerned, there is... We don't see a limitation. So if that limitation comes, in terms of an equitable distribution of the cess between the state and the centre, then obviously there is- that's the point Naren mentioned, that the centre is seized of the issue on a much more, wider issue. And that's the point that has to be addressed in due course of time, because the limitation is essentially a cap, et cetera, which needs to be, put in. So we'll see whether this, there is an amended, amendment that comes in, in due course of time.
And that's the point which will de-risk this into an issue, because the same iron ore can therefore get priced differently in different states. That's not going to help either, or a coal, or for that matter, any minerals, because every state is acting different, and that's that kind of defeats the federal structure. And that's how the MMDR actually said that the centre sets the policy, states collect the money or get the money. So I think there is a broader discussion that has to happen, and the centre is seized of it, as to how to obviate to ensure that investments and occur more uniformly, and to ensure that as a country, we continue to have the advantage comparatively to get the benefit of the minerals that exist in the country.
So I think that is important, and I would request if you hear the dissenting judges' comment, these are precisely the points that have been highlighted. So I'm sure that there will be administrative and executive stepping in after the judiciary clears the period of application of the cess.
Okay. The second question is a major bookkeeping question. Just wanted to understand the bridge between EBITDA and cash flow from operations for this quarter, and whether the debt increase that we have seen was majorly due to the working capital buildup at U.K. operations.
So there are two parts to this. As far as the debt is concerned, firstly, there is the U.K. bit, which is negative, and the working capital bit. So there is a loss bit in the U.K., and then there is a working capital bit in the U.K., and then there is a working capital bit even in India, because of the fact that this is a pre-monsoon preparation and also preparation for the Kalinganagar startup of the blast furnaces. So these are the key elements that we see. I think over a period of time, in the next two quarters, we will see the release of the same.
Thank you, sir. The next question is from Ritesh Shah of Investec. Ritesh, request you to please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi, am I audible?
Yes, loud and clear.
Yeah. Hi, thank you so much. Sir, couple of questions. First is, thank you for the explanation on contingent liability. Just wanted to understand, hypothetically, if the Supreme Court does impose a judgment on a retrospective basis, what is the probability of this contingent liability actually translating to a cash flow impact?
So that's not very hard to say, Ritesh, because I think if in the unfortunate event it does become retrospective, we have to see what, what is the period at which it will be paid. Secondly, I think it will also be dependent on... See, once this, the Supreme Court has actually explained the point of law, not individual cases. So once the point of law has been explained and the operating part of the judgment is clarified later on, whether it's retrospective and/or prospective, in the worst-case scenario, as you just said, if it is retrospective, each of these individual cases will go to the regular in the, in the typical manner.
So if because these cases, like in entry tax, was kind of aggregated at Supreme Court, and they said, the nine bench, the constitutional bench will consider this. So each of this should ideally get back to the high courts or the Supreme Court, regular benches, et cetera. And then the determination will happen on those individual cases, quantum, period, payment, demand happening or not. Because in many cases, demands have not been raised. As I said, in our case, there's no demand. It's actually a contingent liability, which we have properly disclosed. So that operating bit has to flow in. I think it'll take some time to get to that position to understand in case, as I said, in the unfortunate case, it goes to a retrospective judgment.
... Sure. That's, that's quite useful. So my second question is, I'll put it very straight. Sir, what is the net debt number for Tata Steel U.K. and Tata Steel Netherlands, say, 31st March basis or end Q1? If you could please help on that. And just wanted to understand how should one look at the debt profile for both these regions separately, taking into account the incremental cash flow ask that we have?
So I think if you can, you can consider, if I were to look at it from a broad perspective, Tata Steel U.K. in general, U.K. and Netherlands, each of them have about GBP 600 million-GBP 800 million of debt, mostly working capital. And these are essentially used for securitization as well as working capital needs. I see that the Netherlands was actually debt-free till about 12 months back, or maybe 15 months back. And I see them going back into a debt-free status in the next 18 months. So I think that is something that we are working on. Because Netherlands never actually had any debt requirement because they were always positive cash flows.
It's only in the last 12 months post the blast furnace or during the Blast Furnace 6 relining that they have got affected. So I don't see that to be an issue there. We have about GBP 200 million of maybe GBP 300 million of the old acquisition debt sitting also in addition to this. So that's broadly the frame between Netherlands, U.K., and the acquisition debt that we have in overseas, apart from the Tata Steel bonds, et cetera, which are there in Singapore, et cetera. So I think that's the profile.
On your second question, on cash flows, as I said, Netherlands should have their own cash flows to bring down their debt to zero in the next 12-18 months, because that's simply important, and they will not have any material CapEx on the legacy business. The decarbonization CapEx is a separate CapEx spend that will happen. And as far as the U.K. is concerned, we, as we mentioned in the earlier part to a question, that we would like to see it to be profitable, EBITDA profitable, and also repay some parts of its debt.
But fundamentally, the U.K. debt is, in effect, sticks to the India business because we will have to clean the business and make it ready for the decarbonization or post-decarbonization as we get GBP 500 million of grants from the U.K. government.
Sir, that's useful. Just a related question. Sir, U.K., we have indicated GBP 1.2 billion of CapEx, so the government grant is around GBP 500 million. Are we looking to infuse any incremental capital from India to Singapore to Europe? The reason to ask is, I think the board took an approval in May with respect to $2.1 billion. I think we have transferred around $875 million. So I wanted to understand the end use of this $2.1 billion. Partly, I understand it was Abja refinancing. So wanted a breakup over there and wanted to understand, is there further cash flow ask from U.K., which will have to be funded through the India operations?
So as far as the... There are a couple of parts to this, Ritesh. One is that there is a loss funding that is happening, which is what we said, that till September, this, this will continue, as only when we wind down the second blast furnace, we expect to get into a positive territory. This is also a transition from, you know, on the working capital side, buying iron ore, buying coal, and then winding it down, and instead buying slabs and coils. And so that's a transition point that will happen. Post that, it'll, in our view, then by the fourth quarter of this financial year, it gets to a stable working capital position. The spikes and troughs will hopefully get into a more stable situation.
The loss funding also would get off, but there would be, there is a restructuring that is going to happen, and that restructuring, including the redundancies, et cetera, are funded by India. Secondly, if you look at the project, GBP 1.25 billion, of which GBP 500 million will be from the government, and GBP 750 million will be from Tata Steel. We don't intend having more debt on Tata Steel U.K. It will be spent over four years, but it will be spent from a Tata Steel point of view. So this is broadly the flow in which the capital will go over the next couple of years, as far as U.K. is concerned.
All right. And, sir, breakup of $2.1 billion, I think 875 has already moved, the balance. So is it Abja or is it U.K.? How should we look at it based on the Abja maturity?
Mostly, Abja was about. See, Abja is in two parts. There was a $1.25 billion, and then there is another element which is on debt, effectively about $700 million. The total ask that we talked about is $2.1 billion, which is the breakup. If you look at it, about $600 million will be for U.K. loss funding over a period of time, and the restructuring that is going to happen. And then there is a U.K. loan repayment of about $200 million, which is also going to reduce the debt in the U.K. and the consolidated debt. And there is the element on as far as Abja is concerned, and there are some debt in Singapore, which is also going to be repaid, of about $750 million.
... Thank you, sir. Next question is from Indrajit Agarwal of CLSA. Indrajit, I request you to please go ahead.
Hi, good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Yep.
Hi, I have a couple of questions. First, on Netherlands, given that it has, like, fully ramped up on production, can we see any further conversion cost reduction from here on, or have we peaked on that?
So I think, the volumes are close to peak. We were about 50,000 tons short. What we are chasing is 7 million tons of annual production. We have not been at that level for the last four, five years, so, we are at 6.8 million rate for Q1. So if you get to that, that will certainly lead to a conversion cost reduction, clearly, compared to the last two years. Because the last two years, one, is we had lower volumes, as you saw, higher costs because of the cold rolling mill upgrade and, the BF6 upgrade. We were using a lot of high-cost slabs, which we had produced earlier when the coal prices were high, and you had record high prices of electricity and gas, thanks to the Ukraine situation. So many of those things have corrected.
Some of it you're seeing, but, you'll see that happening. So I think we have now reached the, lower levels of electricity and gas prices, and CO2 prices also, which had gone to about EUR 80- EUR 85 , are now around EUR 60- EUR 65 . So you will see all that. So I would think by Q3 or Q4, you will see a more stable cost. I mean, it will trend down. There are also many initiatives that we are taking, over the next 2-3 years to further bring down costs. So I would expect that on an ongoing basis, at these production levels, you will start seeing the costs, reflecting some of these initiatives and the stability of operations.
Of course, the bottom line will also depend on the spreads, and, that's where the spread compression is also there, which, hence, sometimes negates some of the cost takeouts that, we've been doing. But yes, to answer your question, yes, conversion costs will, should keep trending down as we run through some of these initiatives.
Sure. Thank you. Now, my second question is, given that we have better visibility on KPO2 commissioning, any kind of volume expectation that we can see in FY 2026 from KPO2, or it's too soon to come?
FY 2026 should be close to a full year. I think, that's what we see in terms of, once the blast furnace stabilizes, the Steel Melt Shop also the, you know, would have done its expansion. So we'll give you a guidance closer to the end of this financial year. But yes, the expectation is that, we will see as close to maximum as possible. There are some logistics issues which we are sorting out. Those are some of the constraints that we want to deal with over the next six months. Just now, that's not the bottleneck, but as we ramp up, that could be a bottleneck, and those are the problems we have to solve in the next six months.
Sure. Lastly, can you give me the CapEx and working capital buildup number for the quarter?
CapEx was... As I mentioned, CapEx was about INR 3,700 crore, 3,770 crore. I think that is the CapEx number that I'd mentioned during my comments. As far as working capital is concerned, I think it was about net working capital number. Give me a second.
About INR 5,000 crore. 5,000-
Yeah, INR 5,600 crore, INR 5,400 crore, which had a large proportion in, basically in India and in the U.K.
Sure. That's all from my side. Thank you so much.
The next question is from Satyadeep Jain of Ambit Capital. Satyadeep, please go ahead.
Hi, am I audible?
Yep.
Yes.
Hi, thank you. Couple of questions. One, on the, contingent liability, I just want to clarify. You mentioned, when, when you're reporting contingent liability, it is based on, an assumption of 15% tax, in addition to 15% royalty, 15% additional tax on whatever iron ore value you're mining from that state. Is that correct?
It's in the production. Average of last two years' production, at the IBM prices, and then take the-
15%. Is there, there would be something for chrome ore and other, maybe dolomite, other minerals also? Is that-
Yes. Yes. Anything in Odisha is what is disclosed there, and there's a small amount in Jharkhand, which, because Jharkhand at that time had not notified their, their act, though they had passed it, but it was... If you're not notified, it's not an act. Odisha had notified, but the Odisha High Court had squashed it down. So that's the basis on which we have done the calculation. And this calculation is not... I mean, it, every quarter it changes, because we have been, over the last, what, 20 years now, have been doing this, revision to disclose. So if you look at our annual reports for the last 20 years, you will see this number going up.
So that is, you're saying the liability of billing for chrome ore and other minerals is also 15%, based on 15% royalty, same royalty rate for all the minerals?
Yeah, they have not distinguished between any other, between different minerals. It's the same same rate.
You mentioned Jharkhand. Just wanted to understand, because I was under the impression that even Bihar and then Jharkhand also had similar act. You're saying they didn't notify it before this was struck down by the high court? Sir.
Satyadeep, I think this will become a big conversation. If you look at this issue, there are states where the act has been passed.
...and depending on petitioners, have been squashed. There have been states in which the acts has been passed and not notified. There have been acts, states in which the acts have been passed, notified, and states have been collecting. So there are a mix of this between, say, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, there's very few states which is left. So there are a lot of— It's not just in Odisha. In fact, Odisha is, is one place where the, the High Court has actually squashed the act. But then there are other cases, some states are collecting, some states have not notified, some states have not demanded. So there's a plethora of stuff, which is why it went to the Supreme Court. So Supreme Court is actually settling a, point of law. It is not settling individual cases.
It is settling a point of law that under the MMDR Act and Article 49 and 50 of the Constitution, does the state have the power to levy a cess on minerals? That is the point of law. So the point that they have said is, if there is no limitation in the Central Act, they do have. So if you do bring a limitation in the Central Act, they will be capped. So-
That limitation is, could be possibly brought up by amendment in MMDR Act, is that, would that be fair?
That's correct.
Yeah.
That's the point that Naren explained earlier, that that is the point, and the centre also understands. And mind you, a ton of coal or a ton of iron ore in this current contract can be different in different states. So it will have different cost based on the royalty that each state, in their best understanding, imposes. You can have a ton of iron ore differently in Odisha, it could be different in Jharkhand, it could be different in Chhattisgarh or anywhere else. So that is the point that needs to be addressed by the centre, and that is the point that as an industry, as a mining industry, everybody has kind of requested the centre to look at it.
Fair enough. Understood. Second question is on U.K. I think, in the earlier remarks, you mentioned that, you're looking at maybe considering—the government is considering a wider scope, possibly looking at downstream. So just wanted to understand, is there also a discussion around DRI plus EF? And when you look at downstream, what exactly does it mean, and how would you evaluate all these proposals? Even if, let's say, the capital intensity increases, if they give you the same grant of 40%, would you go ahead? How would you evaluate these proposals, is, is what I try to understand.
So effectively, if you look at it, so first of all, they have not said prescribed what you need to have. So they basically want to say that the steel industry in the U.K., which has been neglected for a long period of time, we want to ensure that without investment, no steel industry can revive. And how do you become the best in class in terms of competitive ability, and therefore, what investments are required to service the requirements of the industry and the consumers of that steel, whether it is downstream, automotive, construction, engineering, et cetera. So that's an open discussion that we are having, including DRI, as a case in point.
But in DRI for us, because our primary investment case has been drawn, due to the availability or the surplus amount of scrap that U.K. produces, and U.K. is one of the largest, seller or exporter of scrap at about 8-10 million tons a year. How do we tap that for domestic value addition? And that actually resonated in the investment case. So DRI, we will require virgin iron, but the proportion is much less, and it may not have the ability to make the full business case, may or may not. So we are actually, unless we become a merchant DRI player and use some for captive and outside.
So what we said essentially is that, look, there are many options in DRI or in downstream, but those are, first of all, to be taken separate to the base investment proposal on which the government and us have agreed upon in September 2023. That needs to proceed accordingly. If you are saying, "I have more money to give you as grant, and if you can put in something else," we said that we will take the opportunity, do an investment case, and see what kind of investments make sense to... or makes investment, the business case, and I'll come back to you. We'll come back to you, and then you can decide whether you can give it or not.
And linked to that, you also have to understand, it is public taxpayer money, that what kind of employment potential is there for each of these investments? So if all these converge together, there will be something. But we have said, and the government completely understand, that we need to implement the existing EF project on time, on cost, and ensure that we get the facilities in terms of planning, permission, et cetera, done, so that we can implement. So that is being the base understanding, and there's no change in that. So this is an add-on to see if we can make the whole investment case better, both from a steel industry perspective as well as from the employment perspective. That's where we stand.
Thank you so much. I just want to understand from the economics of the transition tied to this. When you look at, from what I understood, for a 3 million ton conversion, when you bringing slab and converting it to HRC, for that kind of configuration, I thought maybe 1,000 employees is enough, but you would have 5,000 employees. Is that fair, the number that I mentioned? And when you look at the slab that you're going to get, does Tata Steel India, is there a benchmark? You are already exporting slab in the markets, and would U.K. buy slab at the same price? How would the, that pricing for slab import for U.K. work out?
So I think the, to your first question, the 1,000 and 5,000, the, as far as the, if it was only converting slabs to a strip mill, that's not the answer. We have a significant amount of downstream. We have, in, if in the U.K., we have color-coated, we have automotive lines, we have packaging lines, so we have a significant amount of downstream. We have cold rolling mills. So that is the reason why you see a higher number than 1,000. If it was only a hot strip mill in Port Talbot, which is bringing in the slabs, converting it, and producing hot rolled coil, your number is more... In fact, your number will be higher, than what we would need. So that's not the point.
But, because we have a significant amount of downstream and well-established downstream for a long period of time with long-term customers, linked to it. On your point on the transfer price, it is based on the, you know, the regular transfer pricing that will happen on a market basis. And that passes muster through the transfer pricing regulations, both from a tax point of view as well as from commercial point of view. So it is priced out of HR, and that's how it works internationally also when slabs are sold. And that's the model that we will have. So there is a system as well as individually, and that's how it should make money.
The timing, just to add to what Koushik said, the timing is ideal for us because the Kalinganagar upstream, with the hot metal and the Steel Melt Shop , we'll be able to produce 8 million tons, but the hot strip mill in Kalinganagar is a 6-6.5 million ton hot strip mill. So we are slab surplus till we add something else in Kalinganagar, and those slabs can be sent to the U.K. as we build, during the interim, while we build the EAF there. So that works out well for us. Out of the 3 million tons of requirement, close to it, about 1.5 million tons is going from India, and 1 million tons, close to that, is coming from Netherlands, and the rest we are buying from the merchant market, both slabs and hot rolled coils.
Thank you so much, and wish you all the best.
The next question is from Amit Murarka of Axis Capital. Amit, request you to please go ahead.
Yeah, hi. I go ahead?
Yes, please.
We can hear you.
Yeah, yeah. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity. So, like earlier in the call, you mentioned that, you will- you are working on, setting up a 5 million plant at NINL. I just, wanted to understand, like, you've always said that there are options at almost every site for you to grow, maybe except Jamshedpur. Like, what would be the order of priority on the plants now, particularly, given the context that by FY 2030, like, our older leases are, like, going into expiry. Will that impact the decision on the brownfield expansions, or you think that you'll still go ahead irrespective of that?
Yeah. So I think obviously, post 2030, depending on the premiums you will pay for those mines to retain them or to have some other mines, the margin will get compressed a bit compared to where we are today. That's for sure. But I think, there are a number of actions that we are taking to mitigate some of those. Even a simple thing, as we grow more and more in Kalinganagar and Neelachal, we don't carry forward some of the legacy costs that we have, let's say, in Jamshedpur. You know, so the productivity levels, the configuration of the plant, et cetera, will help us run larger volumes with fewer people. So there are a lot of other benefits that we will accrue from this expansion.
So I think, so the long-term profitability will obviously be kept in mind as we plan these expansions, and we'll obviously do it only if it's value accretive, which we think it will be. The second point is, from a priority point of view, Neelachal will get the first priority because we are more ready there than on the engineering work and everything else. Kalinganagar eight-13, you know, maybe be six months after that in terms of getting all the approvals. And, Bhushan, the Meramandali plant, going from five to 6.5. So 6.5 there, 13 in Kalinganagar, and five in Neelachal is clearly visible, and that's what we will move towards. So that brings us to close to 25.
And then you have 11 million plus 1 million in Jamshedpur because you have the Usha Martin business and the, Tata Steel business, so that's, you know, brings us to 36. And then you have the EAF in Ludhiana, and if that's a good operating model, we can very quickly add other EAFs and other rolling mills in the west and south, where there is scrap. So that's broadly the roadmap for 40. We can grow beyond that, also, but like I said, Neelachal can go from 5 to 10, Kalinganagar can go from 13 to 16, and the Angul plant can go from 6.5 to 10. So we have enough headroom in each of these locations to grow beyond the 40 million tons that we've already described.
So just also of, on the 40 million tons, like earlier, the target was 40 million tons by 2030, but it seems like now you're giving a range of 35-40. So is it fair to say that by FY 2030, we'll be closer to 35 now and probably go to 40 beyond FY 2030 then?
I mean, what I've told you is already almost 37, right? And like I said, we will take a call on the EAFs beyond Ludhiana in the next two years. Once we, you know, have the Ludhiana plant up and running and, you know, we have greater comfort with that model. Setting up an electric arc furnace actually takes a couple of years. So it's only 100 acres of land, and you can set it up. And the whole approach to that is to do a replica of what we're already doing in Ludhiana, rather than start to do the engineering and do various things. So I think there is an opportunity for us to do that, but again, we will take a call depending on, you know, our priorities. And we have the options.
I think that's the larger point, and we can execute on the options depending on the, you know, the cash flows of the business and the profitability and all these various taxes that are coming in, or steel imports coming in. The advantage with brownfield is you can pace yourself. We will pace ourselves very appropriately.
Sure. Also tied to that, like, if, let's say, you have to go ahead with the TSN, the DRI CapEx, kind of, will it be possible then to parallelly run those expansions in India? Like or, how do you think about the balance sheet constraints there?
Yeah.
So... Sorry.
Go ahead, Koushik. Go ahead.
So I think in the TSN decarbonization, that's why the conversation with the government becomes more critical, is our basis understanding is fundamentally between the internal generations in Netherlands, plus the government grant, and plus the residual project financing debt in Netherlands, it should be able to be able to do that as we go forward. That's the basis assumptions that we have looked at. Which is why, too, I think there was an earlier question to which Naren mentioned on the conversion cost, that we are very focused on focusing on the profitability of Tata Steel Netherlands by reducing conversion cost structurally across a range of stuff in the current business, which will give the headroom from an internal capital generation perspective. It's not a magic switch.
It will carry on for multi-year, but I think it is something that we are undertaking, almost like a project, to be the best in the Western European cost structure. So, balance sheet should not get impacted fundamentally because the... It will be somewhat ring-fenced, is our understanding. Of course, we will have to get past the conversation with the Dutch government, and we'll see what is the level of grant that comes in. The situation in Netherlands is slightly different than in the U.K., because of the context in which the steel industry stands there. So I think it will be... We'll keep giving you updates as we go along.
But I think fundamentally, Netherlands, we should be able to ring-fence Netherlands CapEx, which will be larger than U.K. because it's got a DRI included. But that's the basis. If we get in a best-case scenario everything, then of course it's, we'll be able to ring-fence, and that's our primary focus.
Thanks. Thanks a lot for the elaborate reply. It's all best wishes.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Would now like to hand over the conference to Miss Samita Shah for the chat questions. Over to you, ma'am.
Yeah. Thank you, Kinshuk. So we have a lot of questions on the Odisha case, and I think we've answered them at length, so I will not take any of them. I think literally answered every question which has been asked. We have a question on Sukinda, which maybe we can touch upon. Essentially, it says that post surrendering the chrome ore mine, why do you still have inventory revaluation, and what is the impact on EBITDA? So just technically, we have not yet surrendered the mine, but if you just want to comment on that, maybe, Koushik, in terms of overall impact.
Yeah. So the surrender process is a fairly engaged process. So when we announced that we want to surrender, that came from post the board approval. Then there are stages in which it goes to different agencies, which look at the proposals and then recommends finally for the surrender. We are in that particular process at this point. And pending that, we have to continue to mine and account for based on the mine plan, which has been approved by the IBM, and pay royalties, and so on and so forth. So it is still an operating mine, it is still operating as a division, so we will have to go through this. We are looking at the next six-eight months to get through the surrender process.
Thank you. The next, there are a bunch of questions on TSN decarb, which I also think we have answered. And I think maybe just a question, which we can look about is on timelines of the decarb CapEx. What is our timeline, and will we start implementing it from next year? So maybe you want to just comment on that.
So at this point of time, as I said, that we are discussing with the government. I think by the next six months, we should have a definitive term sheet in place, six-eight months, by before the end of this financial year, if the discussions go right. So then after that, obviously, in both the U.K. and Netherlands, and also in India in some ways, what is called as a planning permission is called almost like an EC environment clearance in India. So there is a planning permission period, which is a long lead item. We will obviously have to get into a what we call as the detail engineering process to understand and fix the CapEx numbers and the timeline.
But the end is known, that it has to be done before 2030. Because 2030, the emission norms, reduction, kick in. After that, it, we will have to comply with that requirement. So I think the start point will start point of big CapEx, so just now it is actually the engineering CapEx that is being, that will go in the initial years, and the planning, planning permission, site preparation, community hearing, all of that is the part that goes on in the initial period. And in parallel, the technologies is finalized, the detail engineering, the technology suppliers agreement, even the, the other infrastructure requirements, whether it is power, et cetera, those kind of stuff gets in place. And then the spend, so I... On the TSN decarb, I think is about a year behind, Tata Steel U.K. decarb project.
So we will see the U.K. decarb project more starting to spend serious money in about 12 months, well, 12 months later. Because June is when, next year, is when we will get the accelerated planning permission, and then the construction period starts. I think the... As far as the Netherlands is concerned, it's about a, about a year later. So I think that is how I would put it.
Thank you. There are some questions on importing slabs or coils into the U.K., and does that attract any tariff, and how does that actually affect the entire operation?
So I think, good question. I think the, there are quotas that are in place for imports on, hot rolled coil, not on slabs. We have a mix of slabs on hot rolled coil. So we have been working with the Trade Regulatory Authority to take out that, those quotas, and these quotas are going to get suspended. And, and we have been requesting for a bespoke arrangement on, trade arrangement so that we can give it now, without any, tariff implications. So the whole idea is, and the government has been, receptive, the regulatory authorities have been receptive, only because of the fact that we are the only flat product producer of steel in, in, in the U.K. So there is no other competition which gets affected, because of, the way in which the tariffs are placed.
But, the tariff will be structured in a manner which facilitates the import of slabs into the U.K.
Thank you. There are some questions in terms of the funding. So there is a question that your dollar bond outstanding 2028, do you have any plans to take it up earlier, et cetera? And, a related question about all the equity injections which are happening in the various subsidiaries, how is that being funded?
So I think the, one of the principles, as far as dollar bonds is concerned, I think we will run till course. There is buying back, dollars, the bonds are, more costlier and more, complex. But as far as the, second question is concerned, one of our, whole orientation has been to ensure that, from a broader capital structure efficiency purposes, the, the debt is better served on the India balance sheet than on anywhere overseas. So that's a broader theme, and if you have been tracking the, our deleveraging over the last four years or so, you will find that that's, that's happening. And that's important because we've been paying significant amount of tax in India.
I think we just need to kind of rebalance it and use the flow in an efficient manner so that we can optimize on the cash flows across our steel consolidated financials.
Thank you. There's a question on our LNG powered trucks and logistics systems. Could you elaborate any more plans, and how, what is, what is the plan with regards to this?
I think we continue to take initiatives to make sure supply chain is greener. Already in Netherlands, there are initiatives around delivering with greener trucks to customers who want that service. In India, we've been moving cargoes on ship and on road using greener options than we have today. So that's an initiative which will continue to be taken across Tata Steel sites, because we move a lot of material around. So if we are moving about 30 million, 32 million tons of steel, we are moving typically about 90 million tons of various inputs. So there's a lot of opportunity when you look at it from a Scope 3 kind of carbon footprint point of view. So I think those are initiatives which will continue.
Of course, as you know, long distance movement of cargo on trucks is still a challenge, and the commercial vehicle industry globally needs to come out with solutions. I think short distance, it's easy to electrify and use options, but long distance is still an issue. Yeah.
Thank you. There's a question on the Ludhiana project. What is the timeline for completion and ramp up to full capacity?
So the board-approved timeline is two years from March of 2024, that is March of 2026. But we are hopeful to have the plant up and running well before that. You know, but we'll give you a more specific guidance for next year. And it shouldn't take long to ramp up. It's an electric arc furnace with a rolling mill. It's a state-of-the-art plant. So once we start some of these, it's not like starting up a blast furnace or something else, so it should be much simpler to start up and ramp up to full capacity. So, of course, the volume impact will largely come not in FY 2026, but maybe in FY 2027, because that's when the plant would be ramped up.
Thank you. And the last question which we will take is on NINL. There is a resolution to fund INR 6,000 crore. What is this for?
So this is actually not a new funding. This is... When we acquired NINL, we had Tata Steel Long Products in between. So therefore, we had to move, through Tata Steel Long Products, some part and some part directly, because in Tata Steel Long Products, we used to hold almost 74%, so we couldn't equitize the company at that point of time, to do this acquisition. So we had this, NCRPS. Then once the Tata Steel Long Products got merged with Tata Steel, then we are holding it directly. Now, there is an opportunity to equitize it and ensure that the NCRPS is not, not in between. Because when you see the standalone numbers of NINL, sometimes, based on the, the yield to maturity basis, you have to accrue the interest on standalone.
So I think it just was inefficient from that perspective. So on a net-net basis, it's basically a conversion of the NCRPS into equity, if you look at it in substance.
Thank you. With that, I think we've answered all the questions. Thank you very much, all our viewers, for joining us. We look forward to connecting with you again next quarter. Thank you, and bye.
Thank you.