Thank you, Shohan. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this call to discuss our results for the first quarter FY '27.

We declared our results yesterday, and I hope you had a chance to go through the numbers. There's also a presentation which explains more details.

To explain -- to walk you through the results and answer any questions you may have, we have with us our CEO and Managing Director, Mr. T.V.

Narendran; and our ED and CFO, Koushik Chatterjee. We will -- they will have -- share some opening comments, and then we will go into Q&A.

Before I hand it over to them, I just want to remind you all that the discussions today will be governed by the safe harbor clause, which is on Page 2 of the presentation. Thank you, and over to you, Naren.

Thank you. Thanks, Samita, and good morning, good afternoon, everyone.

So let me give you -- share some of my thoughts with you and then hand over to Koushik. So Tata Steel has delivered a resilient performance in Q1 despite the challenging operating environment.

The developments in West Asia continue to disrupt the supply chain and the Chinese steel exports of about 9 million to 10 million tonnes a month also has had an impact on international prices. Of course, this has also led to many countries taking actions to protect themselves, which -- that also has a consequence impact on the steel supply chains and on Tata Steel.

Our performance in some sense, is because of our ability to respond to these situations and have a business model which can adapt to these changing conditions. And of course, the continued performance in the Indian operation has helped shore up the numbers.

I would now like to make some comments on our performance in each geography. In India, crude steel production was about 5.76 million tonnes.

This was lower than the previous quarter because we had some shutdown scheduled and a little bit of some operational issues, which are behind us now. In Q4, the strong deliveries also led to an inventory drawdown.

And so some of the production went into building up the inventory to optimal levels across our supply chain. And hence, you saw the deliveries were about 5.17 million tonnes in India in Q1.

We were able to offset the impact of lower volumes because of an increase in the realizations to the tune of about INR 6,000, INR 5,990 to be more precise over Q4. And the higher net realizations were partly on the back of improved market prices and partly because of our ability to maximize volume in the chosen segments.

So this has helped us deliver an EBITDA margin of 27%, which is higher than the 10-year average. Some of the segmental highlights are what I would like to describe now.

The Automotive and Specialty business delivered best ever Q1 volumes. It had a 21% year-on-year growth in high-end sales.

We also developed cold-rolled ultra-h-ensile steels DP980 for those of you who understand the technicality of it for commercial vehicles and galvanized steel and secondary coatings for passenger vehicles and tighter tolerance specialty steel bars for transmission gears. So these developments further strengthen our position as a preferred partner in the automotive sector.

As you know, we have a market share of about 50% in the auto sector. Our well-established brands, Tata Tiscon grew volumes 33% year-on-year, supported by our extensive distribution network, which today covers 97% of India's districts.

And the stadium volumes also helped by the cold rolling mill in Kalinganagar grew by 34% year-on-year. And our digital platforms, Aashiyana and DigECA continue to scale with a combined GMV of around INR 2,200 crores for the quarter, which is 61% up year-on-year.

We continue to strengthen our presence in the Construction Solutions business through differentiated offerings that improve the project efficiency. In fact, it's also addressing a trend today that we see that construction workers or workers are not easily available to work at construction sites.

And hence, our move towards construction solutions that we deliver is really helping many of our customers. During the quarter, we also commissioned India's first Superflex well mesh line at Cuttack in Odisha.

And this is a first of its kind facility that can produce engineered well mesh up to 3.3 meters in width, significantly higher than the industry standard of 2.4. So all these initiatives are basically aligned with what we want to do, go more downstream, go towards more and more services solutions in addition to the products that we provide and basically look at delivering a convenience and an experience to many of our customers, which are aligned with what they expect.

Our efforts to diversify into new end-use segments are also yielding encouraging results, including shipbuilding, where we've got a number of approvals now. Shipbuilding like automotive is an approval-based business, and this has broadened the addressable market opportunities for us.

And the other area we're looking at is, of course, data centers. We are also strengthening our position in the oil and gas sector through international certifications that enable participation in competitive and high specification projects.

So basically, more and more high-value approval-based businesses as well as emerging consumption sectors like data centers. Our downstream portfolio continues to build momentum with the tubes business and tinplate business delivering the strongest ever first quarter performance.

Our wires business also expanded its market reach through innovative solutions such as 3D welded mesh for railway applications and Gaja Mitra, highly -- a high-tensile noted fencing system featuring specially designed tubular structural post. These are being used in the South by forest departments, particularly where there are elephant corridors.

And Colors, the Tata Colors business, which used to be Tata BlueScope earlier, continues to benefit from the infrastructure-led demand supplying roofing and cladding solutions for projects under the Amrit Bharat Station scheme. As you must have heard, we -- the Board yesterday has approved the 4.8 million tonne expansion at Neelachal Ispat, which is central to our strategy of deepening presence in high-margin and branded long products.

And this is the first phase of growth at Neelachal, and it will expand the total capacity in Neelachal to about 6.2 million tonnes. As far as U.K.

is concerned, our deliveries stood at 0.5 million tonnes. We welcome the recent revisions to safeguard measures, including a 51% reduction in tariff-free quotas and higher duties, but there are some categories like galvanized steel, tubular sections, some of the packaging steels, et cetera, where the current quota allocations are not fully aligned with what we think is fair because in many cases, the quotas are a significant 70%, 80% of the demand.

It used to be higher than the demand. Now it's brought down, but still at a very high level.

So we are working with the relevant authorities to provide industry inputs and support a calibrated approach that balances market requirements with the policy intent. In Netherlands, the liquid steel production was 1.55 million tonnes, while deliveries were 1.4 million tonnes.

The temporary shutdown of our direct sheet plant has weighed on the operational performance because the direct sheet plant or DSP, as you refer to it, is about 20% of our production in Netherlands, and that's been closed since the first week of April. We have just got the approval to run it for 4 weeks starting 5th of August.

And hopefully, the data that we generate through that production will help us get the permission to run it beyond that. So I think Q1 was impacted by the shutdown, but we hope that in Q2, we are able to address this issue.

Finally, as far as West Asia, the developments in West Asia continue to impact energy, freight and some of the raw materials, some of the consumables that we use. We are closely monitoring the situation and taking appropriate action to mitigate the effect of our operations.

With this, I hand over to Koushik for his comments. Thanks.

Thank you, Naren. Good afternoon to those who have joined in.

During the first quarter of financial year '27, the global steel industry continued to navigate a complex and volatile landscape. Geoeconomic shifts, persistent supply chain disruptions and the ongoing developments in West Asia have continued to exert pressure on input costs, energy prices and logistics.

Despite these headwinds, Tata Steel has delivered a resilient performance anchored by robust steel realizations, improved product mix that Naren talked about and ongoing cost transformation initiatives. In today's presentation, I will cover, firstly, the performance for the quarter; second, the strategic decisions by the Board; and thirdly, a commentary on the disclosures that you would have seen in the SEBI release.

I will begin the consolidated performance provided on Slide 25 of the presentation. Consolidated revenues for the quarter stood at about INR 60,794 crores and EBITDA of INR 9,370 crores.

On a per tonne basis, the Q1 EBITDA improved by about INR 2,400 per tonne year-on-year and by about INR 1,490 per tonne on a quarter-on-quarter basis and is presently closing -- tracking close to about INR 13,000 per tonne consolidated, which is effectively a 15% margin. It is important to emphasize that this is after the unplanned cost increases of about INR 1,200 crores on a consolidated basis directly due to the West Asia war.

We have witnessed price spikes in energy prices, freight and insurance, natural gas and logistics costs. With alternative sources and mitigation plans, we expect the impact to taper down in the coming quarters.

Let us now provide a deeper understanding of the India, U.K., Netherlands performance individually. Our India business continues to be our growth engine and continues to be 75% of Tata Steel's total crude steel production.

In quarter 1 '27, India EBITDA was higher by 32% year-on-year to about INR 9,900 crores. India continues to deliver an industry-leading margins.

EBITDA margin improved significantly from about INR 15,907 per tonne in quarter 4 to about INR 19,162 tonne in quarter 1. I think there's an echo out here if you can all put your mics on the mute.

Tata Steel stand-alone revenues for the quarter stood at INR 36,897 crores and EBITDA was INR 9,409 crores, which translates to a 26%, 27% EBITDA margin, reflecting a margin improvement of about 95 basis points on a quarter-on-quarter basis. Total revenue was up by about INR 9,212 per tonne.

However, this was partly offset by the rise in costs by about INR 6,700 per tonne due to lower volumes during the quarter due to annual shutdowns and operational slags, which are now mostly resolved. Within costs, material costs were up by about INR 1,330 per tonne and conversion costs were up by about INR 5,400 per tonne on a quarter-on-quarter basis.

Material costs were up due to higher coking coal costs, consumption costs and the higher purchase of rebars from Neelachal Ispat and Tata Steel Thailand as we optimize the value chain opportunities in the marketplace. Conversion costs moved higher due to higher iron ore royalty-related expenses and the adverse impact of lower volumes, which we'll see better coverage through the fixed cost absorption in the coming quarters.

Moving to NINL. The first quarter EBITDA performance was strong at about INR 498 crores, translating to a margin improvement from about 27% in quarter 4 to about 29% in quarter 1, leveraging operational excellence and the commercial strategy of the Tata Steel ecosystem.

Moving now to the European operations. I would like to comment on the local market dynamics before moving on to the performance.

Steel prices in the U.K. have moved higher in the last few months on the back of policy developments.

U.K. reduced tariff-free import quotas by about 3.3 million to 3.4 million tonnes effective 1st July and applied a 50% tariff on imports beyond quota levels.

While this provides near-term support to the domestic supply chains, as Naren mentioned, we have highlighted to the U.K. government that the measures fall short of their initial proposals and have requested that the quotas should be revisited to reflect the prevalent market demand -- market conditions and demand situations across product categories and not just the total steel volume basis.

In the EU, the tightened EU safeguard system announced last year and effective 1st July is designed to complement the CBAM. And together, these measures have helped to reset the European steel prices and will improve preference for local steel supply over the next few quarters and going forward.

However, the near-term market momentum remains a bit subdued in part because of the average -- more than average inventory levels and subdued demand on the underlying basis. In July, the European Commission reviewed the EU ETS and has opted for a slower phaseout of the CO2 emission allowances.

The proposal is still aligned with the EU climate law, targeting about 90% net reduction in GHG emissions by 2040, but has slowed the pressure for the pace of industrial decarbonization in the near decade. We continue to monitor the developments in both geographies and are engaging with the authorities on the safeguards in the upcoming U.K.

CBAM framework. Moving to the financial performance for the quarter.

The U.K. business continued its steady progress to improve its performance.

The EBITDA losses have now narrowed down from minus GBP 48 million in the fourth quarter to minus GBP 27 million in the first quarter, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of improvement. U.K.

revenue stood at about GBP 484 million and increased by 3% or GBP 15 million on a quarter-on-quarter basis despite drop in volumes. The uplift was driven by higher net realizations to the tune of about GBP 91 per tonne.

This was partly offset by the rise in the total cost to the tune of about GBP 54 per tonne, leading to an EBITDA improvement by about GBP 36 per tonne. On June 3, 2026, there was a major fire at the Port Talbot pickle line.

All personnel were safely evacuated with no injuries, reflecting strong safety protocols. We are preparing for the insurance recovery process to recover some of the damages due to the fire.

To mitigate the impact, Tata Steel U.K. expedited the restart and ramp-up of alternate facilities, the [indiscernible] coal mill and the [ pickle ] line.

In quarter 1, the volume impact on account of the fire was about 10,000 tonnes with an EBITDA impact of about GBP 5 million. There is a ramp-up process for the [indiscernible] mill with new shifts being added to offset some of the volume impacts.

And we hope to ensure that by quarter 3, quarter 4, we should be on normal levels. With relation to the 3 million tonne scrap-based electric arc furnace, our site works construction and equipment sourcing is largely on schedule.

We have completed the groundworks, 35% of the piling and the ordering of all major OEM packages. Close to half of the equipment to be delivered has already been manufactured and is readying in parts for delivery.

We have previously said that there will be some delay in the delivery of the new high-voltage connection by National Grid, and we are continuing to work very closely with them and the other authorities to mitigate the delay. Moving to Netherlands.

We were affected by the loss of the finished steel production due to the shutdown of the direct shift mill plant, which Naren mentioned, and for almost a full quarter due to the exceedence of chrome emissions in the line beyond the specified levels. The direct ship plant annual capacity is about 1.4 million tonnes, which, as Naren also mentioned, 20% of our total volumes.

This disruption has impacted the overall volumes and fixed cost absorption this quarter and hence, the profitability as well. The plant is expected to start for an extended 4-week trial early next week after the completion of the remediation process in close coordination with the regulators.

Trial results have been promising so far, and then this extended run should provide sufficient information to allow the line to come back into full production in the ordinary course. Revenues for the quarter was about EUR 1.4 billion.

On a per tonne basis, the revenue was up by about EUR 87 per tonne, but this was more than offset by the rise in the cost to the tune of EUR 118 per tonne on a quarter-on-quarter basis, largely due to the volume loss, coupled with the increase in the raw material costs. EBITDA for this quarter was at about EUR 4 million.

On business in Netherlands, our business in Netherlands continues to navigate through certain uncertainties relating to the environment, regulatory and legal issues. The difficulty we see is that being the only steel company in the Netherlands, there are often no relevant reference points.

And sometimes the local regulatory standards are set beyond the EU norms or those applicable elsewhere in the industry. Since 2020, we have implemented substantial measurable improvements at our Imaaden operations.

The number of the so-called undercooked coke incidents, which is subject, for example, the criminal investigation on TSN has been reduced by 98%, and the occurrence rate now stands at less than 0.011% of the total pushes, which is below the industry average. TSN CO2 intensity stands at approximately 1.66 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of crude steel, placing us amongst one of the most lowest CO2 integrated CO2 producers in the world or steel producers in the world.

Therefore, while some of the compliance issues are being addressed and mitigated, some technical standards and requirements are both technically challenging and without precedent. We are working with all stakeholders, including the province, regulators, communities and the Netherlands governments to address these challenges.

Moving now to cash flows. We spent about INR 3,579 crores on capital expenditure during the quarter, of which majority was in India.

Our recently completed capacity expansion in Phase 2 of Kalinganagar with 5 million tonnes and 0.75 million tonnes of EF in Ludhiana are ramping up well and are being complemented by the earlier announced focused investments in the downstream facilities that Naren again mentioned, further strengthening our product mix and reinforcing our leadership in the chosen segments. In line with the growth strategy indicated earlier, the Board yesterday accorded the final investment approval for the 4.8 million tonne expansion in long products capacity covering wire rods and rebars, including solutions beyond that at the NINL site for an investment of INR 33,873 crores towards the core project of the steelmaking or steel capacity expansion.

This will take the site to 6.2 million tonnes at the end of the first phase of the expansion as part of the overall strategy to build 10 million tonnes in that site. We are also expanding our iron ore mining capacity in the NBK mines, which are part of NINL by 15 million tonnes per annum of iron ore in phases.

The merger process of NINL with Tata Steel is also progressing as per plan and is expected to be completed by the end of the current financial year. Our previously announced expansions in downstream capacity are progressing well.

The 300-kiloton capacity expansion in tinplate and the hot-rolled pickling and the galvanizing project of 0.74 million tonnes are both on track for completion within the next 30 months. The 0.5 million tonne Combi mill in Jamshedpur has been commissioned and is midway through its ramp-up.

We plan to add about 0.42 million tonnes of cube capacity also during the financial year '27 through an asset-light model. On the balance sheet, the net debt stands at about INR 84,000 crores and the net debt to EBITDA comfortably at 2.3, which is within our stated range of 2.5 to 3x through the cycle.

The stated range of net debt to EBITDA factors in the funding requirements for all the ongoing and recently announced expansion projects. Our group liquidity remains strong at about INR 45,950 crores, which includes about INR 13,200 crores of cash and cash equivalents.

This provides significant financial flexibility to fund our growth and our upcoming projects. Our annualized return on invested capital for this quarter in India is about 27% and on a consolidated basis is about 15%.

With this, I will end my presentation and open the floor for questions. Thank you.

The first question of the day is from Vibhav Zutshi of JPMorgan.

The first question is on the European prices. So our expectation was that prices will keep narrowing the gap between U.S.

prices. But so far, they have been stuck around EUR 700 per tonne and demand continues to be weak.

So as we get into the restocking cycle later in the year, do you think it will be sufficient to drive a significant uptick in prices?

Thanks. I don't see Naren here.

We lost him for a minute.

Let me answer that. I think what we are seeing currently is a lot of disruption that has happened on the regulatory front.

So people have been stocking up. And as I mentioned, that the inventory levels are significantly higher than the average levels.

We see that as we move into the -- deeper into the year, there is an uptick, especially when the contract renegotiation season starts in November, that due to the CBAM impact as well as the quota impact because we should be mindful of the fact that 18 million tonnes out of the 30 million tonnes will be only available for imports. So therefore, that's almost about 47% of the actual volumes imported will be taken out from the market, leaving the domestic market to -- supplies to come in, which is the -- one of the biggest triggers that we see beyond the CBAM.

So that -- so I think there is still fairly long runway as far as price increases are concerned in the European market. But it will happen in phases incrementally rather than a sharp uptick because this is a structural change that is happening in the European market.

Okay. Okay.

Got it. That's helpful.

Second question is on the U.K. So how should we read your overall comments that U.K.

prices are at $100 per tonne premium over EU. But of course, the safeguard quotas haven't been very effective in cutting down imports and just applicable on certain products.

And broadly tying into the fact that you had guided for a potential EBITDA breakeven in second half. So do you still see it achievable or it's contingent on the negotiations that are going on with the government?

So based on -- our hypothesis was fundamentally based on the initial proposals that were given. We still believe, as we see that the prices have increased.

There are certain segments of value-added products like galvanized or tubes in U.K., which still has got very high quotas, especially in relation to the Southeast Asian and Asian mills. And that is what we have been basically talking about.

I think there is still runway to increase. And our guidance is on -- when we said that I think Naren mentioned last time that we are moving towards EBITDA breakeven.

That is still on course. There is some heavy lifting we have to do also internally.

But maybe irrespective of the change in the quotas, we should minimizing it to almost breakeven is what our view is, maybe pushed by 1 quarter, may not be in Q2, but Q3, Q4. In the second half, we should be able to be closer to breakeven.

So I don't think we've changed our goalpost. The prices are helping, but we need to see.

As I said, that the contract renewal that will happen from November onwards will also be an indicator as to how the price increases are sticking. Naren, you want to add?

Some question was essentially...

I didn't hear question.

Yes. Yes.

So question was effectively that 2 questions. First one was on European prices, which I answered that will it -- does it have more runway to increase given the muted demand?

The second one was on the U.K. that are you still guiding for a neutral EBITDA in the second half?

I think in the U.K., as Koushik said, every quarter is getting better than the previous quarter. The trajectory holds.

I think the speed is what we have struggled with a bit. But hopefully, the trade actions, though not fully what we wanted is helping us and bringing U.K.

prices to close to European prices, if not slightly better, which is what it was historically. But for the last year or so, it has been well below European prices, and we are happy that, that has got addressed.

And European prices are also moving up closer to the U.S. prices, which traditionally used to $100, $200 less.

And now the gap is almost $400, $300, $400. So I think we are seeing a rebalancing of prices, and we have been talking about this for some time and which not only reflects the cost in those markets, but also addresses the high imports, which is there both in Europe and in the U.K.

I think in Europe, also with the quotas coming down to 18 million, there's almost stability as far as imports is concerned. And in U.K.

as well because of these actions, there is some support, at least for hot-rolled coils, et cetera.

Sir, my first question is pertaining to the Maharashtra CapEx, right? Because in the annual report, you have mentioned that the Maharashtra CapEx would be somewhere around 6-odd million tonnes.

However, in the presentation and the press release, it has been trimmed down to 5 million. So is that so that you have finalized some plan around Maharashtra?

Is that the thing? And the second part of this particular question is related to NINL.

Now that NINL is moving, say, from almost about 1 million tonnes to 6.2 million tonnes for whatever CapEx you have announced, the CapEx works out to almost about 33% higher than the last leg of CapEx which you did at Kalinganagar basically. So what is the difference because both -- so just wanted to get your understanding on the CapEx front actually.

Yes, go ahead, Koushik.

So first on Maharashtra, I think based on the land that we are talking about, it was -- it's about plus 3,000 acres is what we are targeting. Our -- if you look at our Kalinganagar Phase 2, we actually had 1 blast furnace, which was 5 million tonnes.

And from a -- if you look at it from a productivity point of view and from an asset efficiency point of view, -- our view is that we will go in that copy plants of 5 million tonnes, and that is the reason. So the total Maharashtra volume eventually in phases can take in somewhere around 15 million.

We've not started the engineering work or work to that effect, but it will be somewhere around 15 million tonnes. That's the land capacity.

And therefore, from an asset efficiency point of view, it will be effectively 3 blast furnaces of 555-in. So that's the recalibration because when the 6 million tonnes was talked about, we had talked about 3 plus 3.

But given our experience of using large blast furnaces, it is more productive to use larger blast furnaces in -- rather than multiple smaller ones. That's the reason for 6 and 5.

The point that you mentioned on NINL, NINL, you should actually look at it as a greenfield project. Phase 2 of Kalinganagar was a bolt-on from Phase 1.

A lot of enabling facilities of the Kalinganagar 8 million tonne was also done in Phase 1. So I think it is important to understand that between the several enabling work that is required on the site, on the layout, environment conditions to be compliant, et cetera, all of this and the size of the plants and the number of mills that we have because in Phase 2 in Kalinganagar, we did not have to do the HSM because that was already there.

We had to just expand the capacity. So it's an asset optimization process and the phase -- and the NINL one needs to be looked at more like a greenfield.

And the other thing to add to what Koushik said is if you look at the exchange rate and for all the equipment that you buy from overseas, that's also changed significantly in the last 10 years. So whether it's Phase 1, Kalinganagar Phase 2 or now Neelachal.

So the dollar exchange rate also has an impact on the capital cost for the imported equipment.

Sir, my second question is pertaining to your captive mines basically. Now that in annual report also, you have mentioned that 50% of the requirement post '30 would be met through either NINL or a couple of other mines, what you would still have post '30.

So I just wanted to quickly get your understanding what is the kind of cost saving or maybe the kind of delta what we should build in, considering that you still have 50% of the mine beyond 2030? And will this 50% ratio still hold when you basically hit a 40 million tonne target basically?

Yes. So if you look at iron ore, today, we are maybe about 45 million tonnes going to 50 million tonnes, okay, of iron ore production.

And I would say 90% of that production is actually coming from our old mines. The existing -- the newer mines, which is Gandhalpada, what we call MKB, which is the Neelachal mines or Kalamang, which we got to the Bhushan acquisition.

So these are today producing less than 5 million tonnes. Over the next few years, we expect to take this to about 30 million, 35 million tonnes, okay?

So that's a work which is going on currently. Obviously, the cost of iron ore from those mines will be higher than what we have today because some of them are with 0 premium, some of them are with high premium.

The qualities are different. Gandhalpada mine is high premium, but it has very low alumina.

So that has a value in use benefit, et cetera, et cetera. So it's not just a pure iron ore cost.

We look at the value in use, we look at the quality. The reason why we said 50% captive is because if you had 30 million, 35 million tonnes and you need about 60 million tonnes of iron ore, then you are at 50% we can always bid for the mines, our own mines, which are coming up for auction as well as any new mines.

But we also want to look at the cost of having captive because having captive ore is not an end in itself. It should be competitively priced.

And if people are paying 120%, 130%, 140%, then it becomes a bit difficult to justify that kind of a cost. You need some iron ore supply to keep the plant running without disturbance, but otherwise, you can buy it in the market rather than pay 130%, 140%.

And at 140% premium, honestly, imports also becomes an option, right? So that's why we said having 100% captive is not an end in itself.

We will evaluate the economic value of being captive and then take a call on what proportion of our iron ore should be captive and what proportion of us should be bought from the market.

The first one on Netherlands, just maybe more for understanding. So the caster and rolling mill, you're saying 20% of the production is impacted where the remaining casting and rolling operations don't have high chromium 6.

And when you transition to DRI EF, will that not be -- will you still not have challenges there in case some of these things are not -- there's no resolution. even if you transition those issues will remain.

And this [indiscernible] undercooked, I know there's a hearing on 20th November. Is there a criminal case against executives also?

Or is it mainly company? We don't really know the full extent of what the investigation is.

And in light of everything that you're seeing in Netherlands and the easing of LRF and all, are you less enthused about Netherlands in general or Europe? Or would you look -- is there a possibility of looking at another -- if you're so positive about Europe, why Netherlands?

Is there a possibility of looking at some other country if you're saying there's only one mill and you're facing challenges there? Just trying to understand how you're thinking about Netherlands.

So let me start and then Koushik can complete what I've not covered, right? So more specifically to your question, this is a specific emission related to our DSP or direct sheet plant, which is basically what in India you call a thin slab caster and rolling.

It is similar to that. So the emission is coming out of the tunnel furnaces that are unique to this way of producing steel where the slab is cast and immediately rolled in the hot strip mill.

So there's a tunnel furnace which connects those slabs to the hot strip mill. And these are from the rolls, the kind of rolls that you use in those tunnels, right?

So this was not a measurement which we were doing earlier. We -- as we did the full audit of what are all the measurements that we need to do, we came across this.

We found some deviation. We proactively informed the authorities in the interest of transparency because that was something that we were trying to do so that we work more transparently with the authorities.

So it was something that we noticed. We discussed with them, and then they said it's better to shut it down until we solve the problem.

So we have -- we feel we pretty much solved the problem because we've changed all the rollers. There are dry rollers and wet rollers.

And so we've changed those rollers. So the emissions today seem to be under control.

The authorities have given us a permission to start the plant again on the 5th of August and run it for a month and do the measurements, and we are confident that it should be within what is expected, and hence, we should have the permission going forward. So it doesn't impact the other parts of the plant because they don't use these tunnel furnaces.

It doesn't impact anything new that you may build because that also doesn't use these furnaces. And now even if you use these furnaces, now you know what are the chrome emission levels for these kind of rolls.

And so you will make the right -- use the right rolls, et cetera. So I think this is a unique kind of problem, which we are pretty close to addressing.

The second point, I think Koushik alluded to in his comments. The concern we have in Netherlands is that some of the expectations are beyond what any other steel company in Europe.

forget rest of the world. I'm just saying even in Europe, other steel companies are not expected to meet the levels that we are expected to meet in Netherlands.

And that is a conversation we're having with the government and the regulatory authorities. The law may be that we need to look at then is that being fair to us because ultimately, we have to compete with the other steel companies in Europe.

So that's a conversation going on with the authorities to say, can we be fairer? Can we have a more level playing field as far as emissions are concerned because some of it are technically not -- nobody has done it.

So we need to find a technical solution. And obviously, some of these will have an impact on the operating capability or the cost, et cetera, et cetera.

So there are -- it's a complicated conversation. I think we feel in many metrics, we are amongst the best in the world.

Like CO2, as Koushik said, we are in the top 3 in the world through the blast furnace route at 1.66. I'm just giving a sense, in India, the average is 2.2, right?

In the rest of the world, it is 2. And in Netherlands, we are at 1.68, right?

So that's the level at which the CO2 emission is. On many other emissions, caster emissions, et cetera, we are already at levels which nobody else is, right?

So these are the challenges. Having said that, the narrative in Europe is because, as I said earlier, the European market, like the U.S.

is also trying to support its industry and make sure that unfairly priced imports are not, in some sense, destroying value for the industry. And hence, the reduction in quotas is welcome.

The CBAM is, again, making sure there's a level playing field because European steel producers pay a carbon tax. We pay a carbon tax.

So anyone who sells in Europe is also required to pay that carbon tax. It's an equalization kind of thing.

So we see that -- and the third thing is in Europe, as a geography, there's more investment in manufacturing, in defense, in infrastructure, et cetera. So we do see these actions helping the European steel industry going forward.

And hence, the point you are making is the European steel market should be more attractive going forward than it was in the past. From our point of view, we feel our Netherlands asset is one of the best sites in Europe, not only for many metrics of performance, but also because it's a coastal plant.

There are very few coastal plants in Europe. We are one of them.

So if Europe has to make steel, actually, Netherlands and our Dutch plant is one of the best places to make steel. because it's well positioned.

And that's why we feel that amongst the locations in Europe, we are already in one of the best locations from a steelmaking point of view. And hence, would like to be there if we can address all these issues.

So that's a conversation going on with the authorities. In terms of the financial numbers, yes, I think I don't know if Koushik mentioned that during the time when I was out.

We expect Q2 to be better than Q1. We -- the benefits that we started getting out of the prices were washed away because of the DSP and because of some of the other impacts, but we expect volumes and EBITDA to be better in Q2 than Q1, lower than what we would like it to be, but certainly starting to move in the right direction.

Maybe Koushik, you can add to what I said.

Yes. So I think I'll just add to or respond to Satyadeep, your questions on the DRI EF and other country to invest, et cetera.

And also, Koushik, on the November 20, I missed that.

Yes. So I think the first point is there are certain here and now challenges as we are seeing.

And those challenges, if you look at our SEBI disclosures, we are pretty copious about those challenges. The first one is in relation to the coke and gas plant.

Then there is the direct sheet mill, which -- strip mill, which kind of just is getting addressed. Then there are the emission cases, which are relating to green pushes.

And as I just mentioned, that there's hardly any green push at this point of time, and we are certainly much, much below the industry standards. So as of now, as far as the cases are concerned, the public prosecutor has said we intend to go forward in the case.

We have our defense, and I think we have our data and position on the defense. They have -- it's essentially on the company.

We have heard about the fact that there can be people named, but not named as yet. So we will just see as to how this unfolds.

But I think we have all the defense available for us to fight this case out. Second point, I think as part of our last year's nonbinding JLI with the government, there were certain conditions on both sides.

And slag is one of those conditions. And slag is something that is also not only a future issue, but also a here and now issue.

There are 2 regulators involved with different views at this point of time, so which is what we are working again. So in a nutshell, you can say that we are currently reassessing or assessing the situation with all stakeholders to understand the investability of the DRI EF, the regulatory framework within which there is not just an investment case, but also a sustenance case because these investments are done for 20, 25 years.

And therefore, we are looking at the overall risk return reward profile and assessing that in the context of the investment proposal that we have. We have done a fair bit of almost all of the engineering study.

So we know now exactly what needs to be done. But we will not move until we have clarity on many of these things.

So that is how we are. And finally, it has to make the investment in the business case.

It has to have a return, which works. I think what Naren mentioned rightly is the point that the European market is expected to be better than before.

But there is also the issue in relation to the sustainability of the business and the -- whether the bang for buck is there for new investment. So that is dependent purely on the regulatory side.

As you are aware and as I mentioned, that the EU ETS is also now stretched down. So that also will have some impact on the investability because the CBAM will be lower given the curve.

And if CBAM is lower, then it impacts the investment case. So to what extent is what we are working around just now.

And a lot of it will depend actually on the quota moving forward, which has been announced. And finally is the certainty on the regulatory standards and framework within which we can operate.

So all of this is being considered. And as I mentioned, we are deeply involved with all stakeholders to understand before we take any decision one way or the other.

Just one quick question on India. What is the time line for NINL commissioning?

And you have the EAF now commissioned Ludhiana. Just maybe if you can share some economics of -- I know it's just very early in the process, but how do we look at profitability for Ludhiana?

And what's the time line for NINL commission you're looking at?

Yes. NINL is 48 months is what we have committed that within 48 months, we'll have the plant up.

The -- as far as Ludhiana is concerned, so it's a different operating model. As you know, the Ludhiana model is based on the fact that you will collect scrap locally and sell steel locally.

So the whole model is about collecting steel scrap from within 300 kilometers of Ludhiana plant and selling steel within 300 kilometers. So what you pay more in terms of higher cost because obviously, making steel through an electric arc furnace is more expensive than making steel through a blast furnace to -- so some of that cost disadvantage you offset through the saving on logistics cost.

Otherwise, you would spend INR 3,000, INR 4,000 moving the steel from Jamshedpur or Neelachal to the Punjab area, right? So that's a model.

Second part of the model is in anticipation that there will be some sort of carbon cost in India going forward, right? So our whole objective of getting from a linear value chain to a circular value chain over a period of time is to say that even if 5%, 10% of our production is through the recycling route, it's good for us to have that part of our footprint going forward.

It makes sense from a CO2 emission point of view, CO2 emission at Ludhiana will be 0.3 tonnes compared to 2.2 in Jamshedpur, right? So that's the difference it has.

So that's the whole model as far as we are concerned. So beyond that, I think next year this time, we will have a full year of production, and we'll be able to come back with more specific numbers.

The other thing to keep in mind is the Ludhiana plant was built in 2 years. It is a INR 3,000 crore CapEx for a 0.85 million tonne plant, right, steelmaking and rolling plant, right?

So if you look at it from a CapEx efficiency point of view and time efficiency point of view, it is much quicker than an integrated steel plant. So there are pluses and minuses that we need to weigh.

And -- but we are quite confident this model works. And hence, we are looking also at building a similar plant in the West and in the South.

And like I said, you need 100, 150 acres of land, you can build it in 2 years and add 0.8 million, 0.9 million tonnes. Yes.

First question is, if you can share what is the NSR movement expected given how July is panning out and across both India, U.K., Netherlands and also a usual commentary on the cost changes that we are expecting.

Sure. So I'll give you a guidance on the prices and maybe Koushik can comment on the costs.

So as far as prices are concerned, last quarter, we had guided in India INR 6,000 increase, which is pretty much what we got. This year -- this quarter, we are saying will be about INR 1,500 lower than Q1 in India.

Obviously, some areas like in long products, the drop between April and July is much more than in flat products. Flat products are also holding out a bit because the auto demand has been very strong.

Longs is impacted by construction activity slowing down during the monsoons. But I think we mentioned before, while there will be some margin compression in India because there will be additional volumes in Q2 compared to Q1, we expect the rupees crore to be better in Q2 than in Q1 in India.

As far as U.K. is concerned, I think we've guided GBP 80 increase quarter-on-quarter, Q1 compared to Q4, I think we delivered a GBP 90 increase.

And as far as Q2 is concerned, it will be another GBP 70 to GBP 80 is GBP 80 is what we're expecting Q2 over Q1. But it doesn't all flow to the margins because U.K.

has sent out a substrate. And so the substrate costs will also go up to reflect market, right?

So it's not that the entire GBP 80 will flow into the bottom line. So that's one mention I want to make.

As far as Netherlands is concerned, we had guided EUR 80, and I think we delivered EUR 70 last quarter. And this quarter, the guidance is about EUR 10 per tonne increase.

As Koushik mentioned, in Europe, we are a lot more impacted by contracts because you have long-term quarterly. So some of the flow happens over a period of time.

In India, I also want to add that we will get some of the benefit of the auto increases that we got because most of that was negotiated towards the end of Q1. And so all the increases -- some of it has flown through into Q1 numbers.

Some of it will flow through into the Q2 numbers. But the INR 1,500 crores drop is factored all that in.

Koushik, you want to talk on the cost side?

Yes. So I think the -- if I were to look at from a spread point of view, which would possibly help you better.

So I think we will see spread expansion in U.K. in the second quarter between the substrate and the HR because we are seeing improvement in the prices.

The Netherlands spread is ballpark going to remain the same. And as Naren mentioned, we're going to get some of the benefits on the revenue side in quarter 2.

The -- as far as the coking coal consumption cost is concerned, I think we will be at about $184 per tonne kind of levels. And that is the -- I think we've been able to manage the increases on the consumption cost from a coking coal perspective, from a mix perspective.

So broadly, that's the inputs that I would like to give you.

Yes. Koushik, $184 is versus what in 1Q?

$184 was -- Q4 was $160, Samita, right? So...

Yes.

Consumption cost in Q2 for coking coal in India will be about $5 higher. And for Netherlands, it will be about $10 Q2 to Q1.

Got it. That's very clear.

For NINL expansion, we said 48 months. So is the 0 date already, say, from today?

1st August, okay. And got that.

And the mine will be parallel developed or we are expecting phases lag.

In phases. But I think the -- it will be -- if I were to talk about the expansion of mines is not covered in the CapEx that I talked about.

It is in addition to that. But as Naren mentioned that we are expecting more mine development from the 3 mines that are much smaller currently.

It will be concurrent to the commissioning as far as the steelmaking is concerned.

Understood. On the iron ore topic itself, I mean, since 3, 4 years down the line, we are -- we will see a very massive transition.

Is it possible to share, I mean, what could be the blended cost increase if we take today's market price, maybe at iron ore or steel level?

Blended cost of iron ore, is it?

Yes. So I just want to understand, yes, what would be the blended cost increase, say, if you go by your assumption of 50% captive, 50% merchant, if you take today's price of iron ore, market price of iron ore in, say, 3, 4 years' time?

Yes. So Samita, have you given specific numbers?

Yes. So yes, no, no.

So I think, Sumangal, I think that's -- there are a lot of variables here because you're talking about domestic prices, you're talking about international prices, how that's moving. The forecast on international prices is what is -- depends on the mix.

So I think too many variables here to give you a specific. I would suggest you sort of talk or model it and you're working through a mix.

You've given an indication of what level of mix is expected to be captive and how much we will buy. But I think to get into some specific numbers at this stage is honestly very premature.

But I'll give you a little bit of a -- not numbers, but I'll give you a broader sense. Surely, the cost will be higher, right, not just for us, for everyone.

right? And that's one of the reasons why we feel that the value pool in the steel value chain may shift from upstream closer to downstream, okay?

Because if you're going to buy iron ore at anyone in India is going to keep buying iron ore at 120%, 130% market price and try to -- and as it is, we've always said that the effective tax rate in India for raw materials is amongst the highest in the world. So this is a 65% effective tax rate anyways, even if you just buy iron ore at market, right?

And then on top of that, the premiums, right? So we feel that the cost of producing steel in India will go up because everyone is buying iron ore at these prices, right?

And hence, Tata Steel is saying that while we will keep the optionality of building upstream, as Koushik described, between our existing sites, we can go up to 48 million, 50 million tonnes. because you have 25 million, 26 million tonnes in Kalinganagar, you have 1 million in Jamshedpur, you have 10 in Meramandali, then you have the Ludhiana plant, you may build 2, 3 more like that.

So there is a road map from 45 million to 50 million tonnes already available with existing assets. Then on top of that, if you do Maharashtra, you have another 15 million.

So we will keep these optionalities open because the demand of steel will continue to grow. But demand doesn't necessarily mean good profits just because you produce steel, right?

So we just want to look at which part of that value chain should we be more -- where should our capital go more. And that's why we feel that there is a lot more value for us to put in money in the upstream, but also put more money in downstream than we put in the past.

And we feel that some of the cost increases that we will see in the input cost will be offset by the cost takeouts that we are doing on efficiency that Koushik has talked about, which is a conversion cost, plus the fact that we will be scaling up plants like Neelachal and Kalinganagar, which don't have the legacy cost that we carry in Jamshedpur, et cetera. Plus these are plants closer to the sea.

So a lot of our logistics costs come down compared to inland plants, right? So for multiple reasons, we feel that there will be a lot of cost takeouts, which can offset the input cost increase and the move down the value chain will help us focus a lot more on revenues to offset some of these cost increases.

So we are looking at how can you deliver an EBITDA margin close to what we are delivering today even if the iron ore prices go up. I think that is basically our objective.

Going back to the earlier question on the European investment, -- like in the last 3, 4 years, we have taken some initiatives, some are midway in terms of execution. But parallelly, the policy framework that has evolved really has not been in line with what we were talking about back then, right?

So is there a rethinking on this at all on the table that we scale back our European aspirations and put the energy more in India? Or is it like we want to be there somewhat kind of situation?

So Ashish, let me put it this way. It may not be one or the other, right?

And I think we will grow in India as we want to. And like I just described as an answer to the earlier question, grow in India doesn't necessarily mean just building more and more blast furnaces.

You will build blast furnaces where you think that's the right thing to do. You will build electric arc furnaces where you think that's the right thing to do.

You will build downstream where you think that's the right thing to do, right? So we will balance it out in terms of what is the best place to put money in India even as we participate in the growth in India.

As far as Europe is concerned, the fact that you are going to be penalized on CO2 stays, right? There is a carbon tax that you're paying.

Just now, as Koushik said, for Europe, we've got a 4-year extension on the free allowances. But otherwise, if you don't do anything, you will pay a carbon tax in Europe, right, which will keep increasing.

So then the carbon border adjustment mechanism is the support that is being provided so that European steel producers are not disadvantaged, right? So to some extent, it's not that the policy has changed.

The policy is happening as it was said to. What we -- what has changed for us is more the regulatory environment in Netherlands has become more and more challenging.

And hence, we are looking at do we -- how do we ensure we have a social license to operate, not just now, but for the future, right? So that is obviously kind of what do you call it, making us reflect on what we need to do there.

One is, of course, to run the existing operation. And obviously, as Koushik said, before we make new investments, we need to see that there is a social license to operate and there is a return on any investment that we make.

So we will plan our investments in Europe, if at all, based on the regulatory environment. The market side has certainly improved, as we said earlier.

The policy support for the transition continues to be there. Regulatory environment, particularly Netherlands, is becoming quite challenging.

So we will evaluate and move forward accordingly. Just now, the only capital committed is in the U.K.

transformation. And U.K.

transformation, as we've explained before, if you do this transformation, we will -- already we've taken out about GBP 400 million of fixed cost in the last 3 years. And in addition to that, our OpEx by using local scrap and the electricity rates that we've negotiated, et cetera, we feel that the cost position of U.K.

will be about GBP 100 to GBP 150 per tonne better than it was before we did all this. So in many ways, that was, again, the right direction to move in.

Koushik, do you want to add anything?

Yes. Just to make 2, 3 comments.

One is the weightage of capital allocation on India will certainly be the one to dominate. That is one part, whether it is in the upstream volume expansion or the downstream value expansion.

The second part is, see, in Europe, the investment that we are talking about in Netherlands, et cetera, is not an investment which is discretionary, so to speak, it's regulatory in nature in some ways because of the high carbon tax. But that is subject to 3 supports.

The government support from funding, policy support in the way in which the transition should happen and market support to ensure that it can sustain or make the investment investable, so to speak. So today, we have the market support through CBAM, through the quotas and tariffs and EU ETS.

EU ETS has got slightly diluted or I would say, not slightly moderately diluted because of the extension of the time frame. And that is also demanded by many of the market players who are saying that it is not viable to not have the free allowances and the CO2 costs are prohibitively uneconomical.

So therefore, the EU ETS has got relaxed. CBAM is in force.

It is getting more validated through assessments, et cetera, and the quotas are in place. So the market support, as Naren mentioned, is there.

The government support is there. There are caps to that.

And then the policy support, which is the transition policy support. And then there is a normal ordinary course of business policy support, which is where we are seeing challenges in Netherlands in particular.

So we will have to take all of these into account and then say, does it stand? This decision is not just for today.

It is actually going to be for the next 2 decades, 3 decades because it's a transition process, and this is a Phase 1 of the transition. There's a Phase 2 of the other blast furnace also necessary.

So therefore, we need to take all of -- we will take all of these into account and then come to a conclusion of whether this is the path to go forward or is there another alternative path to go forward, which is not so CapEx heavy, et cetera, et cetera. So I think we are in that zone just now.

But if these regulatory frameworks become permanent and there is no rethink, then obviously, there will be a rethink at least on our side. And that is important for us to understand.

India, in my view, and the way we are moving ahead is not constrained by what is happening in Europe. Europe India is actually focused on delivering consistent in a manner in which we can create sustainable value over the long term.

And also to tell you that we are also looking at investments in new technology in India, which is also to help the sustenance, whether it's the easy melt or the HIsarna, et cetera. So India capital allocation story is not dependent on Europe.

It will follow its own course. It will continue to grow in both upstream and downstream.

So that is the framework within which we are looking at. If the government support was -- is not there from a funding point of view in any of the geographies, which is to change the process technology, we would not have the ability to do that investment.

It is very, very clear, and that's the optimal. So the government support, policy support, market support, all these things and the social license to operate the community support.

All of this -- all these have to be in the same alignment, then it makes sense for any investment to do. So I thought it will just make more a principal comment on what you just asked.

And then we'll see as to where we go. There are time -- there is a time during which we will complete this assessment, including our engagement with the various stakeholders and then come to a conclusion.

But India is not affected as I hope the NIL approval by the Board yesterday endorses that point that the India capital allocation and growth story is not dependent on any other parts of the business.

So just on India NINL, congratulations firstly on the Board approval coming through. But generally, like post FY '27 for almost like 4 years, you probably won't have enough capacity to grow volumes now, given that NINL will come on stream somewhere in 2030.

So what is the plan in that sense to kind of make up for this? Is there any way you can make sure that you still participate in the India growth of, let's say, 7% CAGR?

And even if we take NINL, I mean, coming in 4, 5 years, it still implies like a 3%, 3.5% CAGR only, which is still much lower than market. So what generally is the long-term thinking on the India growth?

So Amit, I think, again, I want to emphasize something, right? Our objective is not to be the largest player in India or in market share by size unless it creates value, right?

So we feel that we want to have a market share in chosen segments, which is double that is our overall market share. That has always been our stated position.

Like so if we are 20% market share in India, we want to be 40% market share in segments which we think are more value accretive, where it's approval-based or where we have a good franchise like Tata Tiscon or downstream, et cetera, et cetera. So we are looking not just at the volume growth in upstream, where, like I said, we have an optionality, and we will grow at the pace at which we think is right.

But we also want to grow even in the next 2, 3 years, we are adding our HR galvanizing line in Tarapur, which is going to be a state-of-the-art hot-rolled galvanizing line in India. Nobody else has that, right?

We are adding doubling our template capacity, packaging steel capacity, which is INR 20,000 or something I00, INR 25,000 value add, right, on the hot-rolled pi, right? So then we are wanting to grow our tubes business, which is today about 1 million, 1.5 million to maybe about 4 million tonnes in the next few years.

We want to grow our wire business, which is at 600,000 tonnes to 1 million tonnes, right? So there is a lot of growth that we are doing in downstream businesses where we have a strong position.

We are the leading player in most of these businesses. and we want to grow in that, right?

So the upstream growth, yes, Neelachal, there's a Kalinganagar, which we'll plan or more -- maybe in the next year, we will plan the Meramandali expansion from 5 million to 6.5 million tonnes. We also have other projects because today, we are selling about a couple of million tonnes of -- sending a couple of million tonnes of slabs to U.K.

Once the EF comes there, we can convert these slabs into plates or anything else that we want to do in India. So that's another 2 million tonnes of additional value-added opportunity that's available.

So we are looking at it from that perspective. The next phase beyond Neelachal will be, of course, there is an opportunity in the next 3 years to build a couple of more Ludhianas.

There is an opportunity in the next few years to also expand Meramandali. And beyond that, of course, we have Maharashtra, we have Kalinganagar Phase 3, Neelachal Phase 2, et cetera, et cetera.

So that's the plan that we have going ahead.

Yes. Just to clarify, right, when you say that Tata Steel does not want to be the largest upstream company and you want to focus on downstream.

Is it because the company thinks that a new upstream greenfield steel plant in India with potential iron ore cost based on market pricing post 2030 does not justify the return profile? Because we would assume that given where steel prices are and given where iron ore prices are, it will still be profitable to set up upstream capacity in India than, let's say, invest in Europe.

Yes. But we are not saying that we won't set upstream because we're investing in Europe, right?

We will evaluate Europe separately. We will evaluate India separately.

So if there is a -- even post 2030 with high iron ore prices, depending on where the rupee because we'll still be importing coal right? So depending on all that, if there is value, of course, we are keeping that optionality, right?

We are not saying we are not -- we will have an optionality of 65 million tonnes by then because Maharashtra also, we would have that optionality. We already have an optionality of 50 million, right?

So we have that optionality. So if it makes sense, we will certainly grow.

But we feel that if earlier we spent all our money on upstream and less on downstream, we feel that, that mix needs to change a lot more because we feel that there is a lot more value for a lot less capital available in the downstream, and that is closer to the customer, and that also depends on the franchises that you have and the relationships that you have, et cetera. So it's not that there is no business case for upstream beyond 2030.

But it will not be -- if you're going to -- if everyone, not just Tata Steel, if everyone is going to pay 100% or more for iron ore, in the market, then that takes away value. So value is going in some sense from industry to the government, right, whether in terms of royalty, whether in terms of premium, whether in terms of taxes.

So that's a larger issue, which we are talking to the government to say that our biggest advantage as India as a country is iron ore. And if we, in some sense, have a situation where the iron ore cost itself is very high for everyone for whatever reason.

And part of the problem is us as private sector also, the way we are bidding for the mines. So we are, in some sense, passing on all the value to the government even before we start adding value, right?

And the other question to think about is there is a lot of upstream capacity, which everyone has built, then maybe you're better off being a buyer of some of that product to convert it into higher-value products. So there are different ways to look at this industry, and it's a long value chain.

So if I just may add to Pinakin, see, when you look at the sequence of growth, and I think we've said this many times, the NINL first phase, second phase, if you look at the Kalinganagar going up to 17 million tonnes, Bhushan or Meramandali going to 10 million tonnes eventually and then Maharashtra 15 million. That is actually a very significant upstream growth of about 60 million, 65 million tonnes and the EAFs.

So the question is, is the world going to fall off in 2030? Or is this a journey because I think when Amit talked about the CAGR growth of 7%, it's certainly not going to fall off in 2030.

It's a 2-decade, 3-decade process, right? So the question is, how do you actually sequence and grow without producing huge volumes and then at the commodity end and then look at export markets and then struggling on those fronts.

It is a question of how do you actually build the capacity with the demand in the segments where it is growing and in the areas that it is growing. So I think there needs to be more thoughtfulness rather than just volume growth, but volume growth is not being stopped.

And as I repeat again, it has got nothing to do with Europe. Europe is on its own defining way of things and India will grow separately.

The physicality of growth will depend actually on how we create the fronts, and that's how -- what we are working on. Our next goal is in Kalinganagar and in parallel in Meramandali.

So it will come in sequence. You will get to know the way in which we are progressing.

It is not one unfolding of the envelope. It will -- as it happens, you will get the sense that between 2030, '35, you will have a lot more capacity coming in, the value-added mix coming in.

So it is a process. And we need to constantly work on the profitability effectively, which comes from the value also.

As I said, that in the next 30 months, there are a lot of downstream units which are going to come and get commissioned. And by that time, we should also be very close to another EAF, et cetera.

So I think those are the kind of things that we need to work around.

So, maybe we speak -- shift to the next speaker, if we can't find Ritesh.

Sir, I have a clarification first before I ask the first question. So on last quarter, we raised there were concerns on coke oven.

And as far as I can understand, management has clarified that you have done some changes and now the emission rates or the concerns which were raised are below industry standard. Is my understanding right?

And if that's the case, does management now believe that the going concerns which were raised earlier have less weightage now than they had earlier?

I think let me again say something and then Koushik can answer further. So basically, the point Koushik was making is what is called green pushes when you push coal into a coke oven and green push is something where the coke is not fully cooked in some sense.

And obviously, in the past, we had more pushes, such pushes than we should have had. That is clear, right?

So a lot of actions were taken. And today, we are at 98%, 98-plus percent lower than what we were before.

The requirement in Netherlands was to minimize coke pushes, green pushes. And -- but now that is being more specific to say there should be 0 green push, right, which is we -- our point is, yes, we are close to 0, but there's no coke oven anywhere operating with 0 green push, right?

A lot of work has been done to make sure that we are close to 0. So that problem we feel is at a stage where it is better than at least anyone in Europe, forget anywhere else, right?

But from the authorities' point of view, given the problems that we've had in the past or the issues of the past, the whole thing is about not having a coke oven operate and to close a coke and gas plant. I think that is where we are.

So that discussion that has not gone away. In some sense, that we would have done anyway if we were transitioning into a DRI EAF process route.

And the whole plan originally was to make that change by 2030 and 2035, et cetera. But now with the current conversations with the government, with the authorities, et cetera, it's more to say, can you do it in 20, whatever is technically the most appropriate time and run the blast furnaces using coke that you can buy from the market rather than making it locally.

So that's the conversation which is going on. So Koushik, I think...

Yes. So no, that's actually the case.

It would have got closed or transited out of Covens in the ordinary course with the RIF comes through. It's a preponement and in a manner where the compliance level are as much as technically feasible to do.

So my question was mostly on the depreciation side. So we had guided for increase in depreciation for this quarter as well as for FY '27.

So can you just throw some light on what is that about?

Yes, sure. So the -- as you know, that our mining assets will come up for reauction or bidding in 2030.

And there are significant amount of assets in our mining locations, beneficiation plants, the other infrastructure assets, pipelines, et cetera. So because there is a defined time now 2030, where it will be reauctioned the right of first refusal to Tata Steel.

We are actually accelerating the depreciation of these mining assets or the PPEs. So it will be about INR 300 crores a quarter, so INR 1,200 crores every year additional depreciation in line so that there is not a big in 2030.

It is a faster amortization given the point -- it's not that the useful life assessment has been done, but there's a regulatory need also, and that's what we have taken. If we get back those assets, we'll be fair valuing it at a later point in time.

Just a couple of questions from my side. Something very interesting you mentioned in your opening remarks about shipbuilding and data center.

So just wanted to understand what kind of grades we are focusing there and whether it is for domestic shipbuilding, defense or we are targeting more export grade steel? And also for data center, if you can highlight a bit more.

That is my first question.

Yes. So on shipbuilding, basically, with the Kalinganagar plant, which has one of the best hot ship mills in the country, at least for the sizes that is up to 25 mm thick and 2 meters wide, we can produce pretty much all grades, including the very high-tensile kind of grades, et cetera.

So for shipbuilding sector, you need to go through an approval process. There's Lloyds and there's ABB and there are a few others.

There are a few bodies, independent and international bodies who approve your material for use in shipbuilding. So we've got those approvals.

And I think while the volumes are still small, like I said, we always like to be in the more discerning sectors because that's how you can protect yourself from the commodity cycles to some extent, which we always face. So I think we'll be doing about 100,000 tonnes this year to all these grades and largely for the domestic market to go back to your question.

and then we can take it to about 0.5 million tonnes. But I think the more important thing is once we get an entry into these sectors, get the approvals, just like in auto, so we started small, we can always grow.

So just now the focus is domestic market, but we can also look at international markets. As far as data centers is concerned, when you build data centers, apart from the regular steels that you would supply, data centers also have a lot of storage solutions.

And so even if you look at a company like Nucor, a couple of years back, if you followed it, they spent $3 billion buying a storage solutions company for data centers. So our interest is not -- our interest is more to get into the skills that data centers use, both in the construction of it as well as in the storage solutions that they need inside.

And we have quite a few of the downstream value-added products, which can tap into the data center market. Because basically, what's happening is as more and more money is spent on these businesses, a lot of it can flow to steel because that's going to be an important component of some of these investments.

So both -- and this is not just in India. Data centers, we're doing a lot of work in Europe as well.

So between our colleagues in Europe and India, we are doing a lot of work to not only track the steels that are used, how do we tap into that market in an organized way. It's more -- it's not just about selling the basic steel product, but into the solutions, which help these companies building and investing in data centers.

So it's a growing segment, and we want to be a big part of it.

Thank you, Shohan. I think we've answered most of the chat questions.

There's just one on TSUK, which I will ask since there seems to be a concern that in view of the ongoing or the recent nationalization of assets, which has happened at U.K. will Tata Steel participate and take up any of such opportunities?

No. The answer is no, but maybe Koushik you can.

Yes. So this rationalization bill or act that has come up in U.K.

was in response to the situation in British Steel and in Rotherham, where there are -- there was an electrical steel, which incidentally was Tata Steel, which actually sold. So if you look at U.K.

steel industry, the things which are getting rationalized were sold by Tata Steel 10 years back. So there is no -- if that was the strategy, then we wouldn't have sold it.

So therefore, we don't intend to participate. We are just now and will be focused only on our asset in Port Talbot, where we are building the...

Thank you. So with this, we will end.

Thank you very much for all your questions and your participation. We will connect again next quarter.

Thank you, and bye.

Thank you all. Thanks for joining.