Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/4 of 17 December 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of titanium dioxide originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 13 November 2023, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of titanium dioxide (‘TiO2’), originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’, ‘China’ or ‘the PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 29 September 2023 by the European Titanium Dioxide Ad Hoc Coalition (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the European Union (‘the Union’ or ‘the EU’) industry of TiO2 in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) The Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1617 (3) of 6 June 2024 (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 13 June 2024, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days.

(5) Three users, namely Plastika Kritis SA (‘Plastika Kritis’), Munksjö Paper AB (‘Munksjö’) and Felix Schoeller GmbH & Co. KG (‘Felix’), made comments which did not pertain to the accuracy of the calculations.

(6) Plastika Kritis, a producer of masterbatch white, claimed that no dumping is taking place according to their knowledge. They further reiterated previous claims that the proposed anti-dumping duties will have catastrophic consequences for the Union masterbatch industry.

(7) In particular, Plastika Kritis claimed that masterbatches from other third countries will become much more competitive in both the Union and export markets since they will continue to have access to cheap TiO2 from China. In addition, they argued that due to limited capacity of the Union industry, there will be insufficient supply of TiO2 if the measures are imposed. Finally, in case of retroactive application of the duties, users will suffer even bigger losses since the lead time on deliveries from China increased due to the attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea in the first half of 2024.

(8) These comments are addressed in the relevant sections of this Regulation in the context of analysis of the Union interest and retroactive collection of duties (see Sections 7.3.2 and 8.3).

(9) Munksjö and Felix, producers of decor paper, submitted comments, disagreeing with the Commission’s decision not to grant end-use exemption to imports of laminate-grade TiO2 and reiterating their earlier claims on why the conditions to grant it are met.

(10) They further claimed that without such end-use exemption their situation will continue to worsen even despite the Commission initiating an anti-dumping investigation against Chinese imports of decor paper on 14 June 2024. (4) The reason being that the imposition of anti-dumping duties in the present investigation will both increase their cost of production and decrease the price of TiO2 on Chinese domestic market, thus further decreasing the cost of production for Chinese decor paper producers. Neither of these developments will, however, be taken into account when reaching the conclusions in the decor paper case, since the investigation period of that case ends prior to imposition of duties in the present investigation.

(11) These comments are addressed in Section 7.3.4.

(12) On 11 July 2024, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of TiO2 originating in China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1923 (5) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(14) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Munksjö, Felix, Plastika Kritis, Flint, ASEFAPI, Kleverkem SRL, CEPE, LB, Mauvilac and the complainant. No hearings with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings were held.

(15) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions when appropriate.

(16) The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of titanium dioxide originating in China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(17) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with CEPE and LB. No parties requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer.

(18) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed recital (6) of the provisional Regulation.

(19) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (7) to (13) of the provisional Regulation.

(20) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital (14) of the provisional Regulation.

(21) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (15) to (19) of the provisional Regulation.

(22) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation.

(23) The Commission described the product under investigation, the product concerned and the like product in recitals (21) to (26) of the provisional Regulation. In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in those recitals of the Provisional Regulation.

(24) Following provisional findings, several parties contested the Commission’s conclusions on requests related to the product scope. Some parties also brought forward new claims on product scope.

(25) In addition, as stated in recital (33) of the provisional Regulation, since several product scope claims were made after the deadline to submit those claims, the Commission was not able to consider them at provisional stage. These claims have now been assessed and are addressed in the appropriate subsections below.

(26) In the absence of any comments on extending the product scope to Masterbatch White (‘MW’), recitals (34) to (37) of the provisional regulation are confirmed.

(27) In its comments on the provisional Regulation, AkzoNobel claimed that the Commission failed to address AkzoNobel’s proposal to amend the PCN structure, and that the Commission should consider refining the PCN by adding more categories to the ‘TiO2 content per weight’ field of the PCN.

(28) The Commission analysed all claims concerning the amendment of the PCN structure and stated in recital (42) of the provisional Regulation that no evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the chemicals in the coating would affect prices. The same conclusion applies to AkzoNobel’s claim summarized in recital (27). No evidence had been submitted that refining the PCN by adding more categories to the TiO2 content by weight would be necessary to ensure a fair price comparison.

(29) Furthermore, as stated in recital (43) of the provisional Regulation, none of the exporting producers objected to the proposed PCN structure on the ground that it would result in an unfair price comparison, either because the PCNs do not differentiate products based on the chemicals that go into the coating or that they are insufficiently granular in the ‘TiO2 content per weight’ field. The Commission thus had no basis to conclude that it would be necessary to make this field more granular in order to ensure a fair price comparison under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(30) The Commission therefore considered this claim unfounded and rejected AkzoNobel’s proposal.

(31) In the absence of any new arguments and evidence to the above, the Commission confirmed the findings from recitals (38) to (44) of the provisional Regulation.

(32) At the outset the Commission recalled that it follows from the Court’s settled case-law that the purpose of the definition of the product concerned in an anti-dumping investigation is to aid in drawing up the list of the products which will, if necessary, be subject to the imposition of anti-dumping duties. For the purposes of that process, the Commission may take account of a number of factors, such as, inter alia, the physical, technical, and chemical characteristics of the products, their use, interchangeability, consumer perception, distribution channels, manufacturing process, costs of production and quality. (6) It is also settled case-law that in defining the product concerned the Commission enjoys a broad discretion. (7)

(33) The examination of whether a specific product has been validly included in the list of products which will, if necessary, be subject to the imposition of anti-dumping duties must be carried out in the light of the characteristics of the product concerned as defined by the Commission, not in the light of the characteristics of the products comprising the product concerned or its subcategories. (8) Products which are not identical in all respects may, because they correspond to the factors which the Commission took into account in defining the product concerned, come within the definition of that product and, in that context, be the subject of an anti-dumping investigation. (9)

(34) According to the case-law, a claim that the product concerned is ill defined must be based on arguments which show that either the Commission erred in its assessment with regard to the factors it held to be relevant or that the application of other more relevant factors required that the definition of the product concerned be restricted. (10)

(35) As explained in recitals (24) and (25), several parties introduced requests for product exclusion after the deadline to submit product scope claims or contested the provisional conclusion of the Commission concerning their request. To examine these product exclusion requests, as stated in recital (45) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission examined (i) the basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics of those product types, (ii) their end-use and interchangeability, (iii) end-customer perception. For the sake of completeness, the Commission also considered other elements which could potentially justify a product exclusion based on Union interest considerations such as: (iv) impact of duties on the user, (v) alternative sources of supply, and (vi) impact of exemption on duties. No parties contested the elements which the Commission examined to assess product exclusion request.

(36) Sun Chemical Ltd. (‘Sun Chemical’) made its product exclusion request in a submission late at the provisional stage of the investigation. In the same submission, they requested an end-use exemption for uncoated TiO2 grades if and when used as an intermediate to produce other non-white pigments that contain the conversion of the crystalline structure. This request was thus, as explained in recital (62) of the provisional Regulation and indicated in recital (25) above, not considered at the provisional stage of the investigation.

(37) Sun Chemical provided only some information on the basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics of this product, end-use and interchangeability, impact that the duties would have on their business, and the impact of potential exemption on duties, but not on end-customer perception of changes to the product or alternative sources of supply.

(38) In addition, Sun Chemical did not provide a questionnaire reply nor submitted the relevant and verifiable data, which would allow the Commission to properly assess the claim, in an alternative format. It follows that Sun Chemical failed to substantiate their request even on the first three elements listed in recital (32) above, nor was the Commission able to verify any of the information presented.

(39) For example, the Commission had no information on the share of imports from China in Sun Chemical’s supply mix. Furthermore, due to absence of evidence, the Commission could not verify the claimed share of TiO2 in Sun Chemical’s cost of production and was thus not able to draw an accurate conclusion on what impact the duties may have on them.

(40) Equally, the Commission did not have verified information on which types of TiO2 Sun Chemical purchases and which products they use them in. The Commission was therefore unable to verify either the interchangeability, specificity of use, or the potential undermining of effectiveness of the duties if the product exclusion or end-use exemptions would be granted.

(41) Furthermore, Sun Chemical claimed that the distinguishing chemical and physical characteristics of the TiO2 that it purchases for the production of non-white pigments are that it has no coating and must have a low value of heavy metals. They did not, however, specify what threshold of heavy metals that is and how could it be measured by the customs, to ensure traceability in case of granting a product exclusion. On top of this, information on the file show that uncoated TiO2 is used in other industries too, such as ceramics production and for use in food, pharma, and cosmetic products.

(42) In view of the foregoing, Sun Chemical failed to demonstrate that the application of other more relevant factors than those considered by the Commission when defining the product concerned required that the definition of the product concerned be restricted by excluding uncoated TiO2 for non-white pigments or that an end-use exemption was warranted. Moreover, uncoated TiO2 falls within the product definition provided in recital (21) of the provisional Regulation and interested parties provided no evidence demonstrating that this subcategory TiO2 imported from the PRC is not in competition with any other product available on the Union market. The request was therefore rejected.

(43) CEPI made this product exclusion request after the deadline to make product scope claims has passed. This request could thus, as explained in recital (64) of the provisional Regulation and indicated in recital (25) above, not be considered at the provisional stage of the investigation. CEPI did not make additional claims on this request in its submission on the provisional Regulation. The complainant opposed this product exclusion request.

(44) CEPI provided only some information on the basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics of this product, end-use and interchangeability, end-customer perception of changes to the product, and alternative sources of supply, but not on the impact of potential exemption on duties or what impact the duties would have on users.

(45) CEPI has shown that food-grade TiO2 has a special chemical characteristic, insofar that it has to meet the low heavy metal content and other requirements for E-171 food additives, set out by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. (11) These thresholds, furthermore, could be easily checked by the customs authorities by the standard methods used to test food additives.

(46) While CEPI did not specifically address the issue of end-use and interchangeability, the Commission noted in this respect that the heavy metals threshold for food-grade TiO2 is stipulated by law. (12) No other grade of TiO2 which exceeds those thresholds could legally be used as food additive (E-171).

(47) CEPI further claimed that only two or three Union producers are able to provide food grade TiO2, and only in limited volumes.

(48) The complainant contested the notion that food-grade TiO2 could be distinguished from other types of TiO2 based on the presence of phosphorus in the coating or based on differences in production processes. The Commission noted that CEPI never made such claims and thus dismissed the complainant’s arguments as moot.

(49) On the basis of the available evidence, the Commission found that, even if the food-grade TiO2 has to meet specific requirements for E-171 additives, it cannot be concluded that it does not share the basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics with other types of TiO2. It is merely a sub-type of the latter. According to the information available to the Commission, it is a product which requires the same main raw materials as other applications, only of higher purity, and a production line better protected from introducing contaminants during the production process in order to achieve the required regulatory thresholds.

(50) The Commission also noted that CEPI did not provide any estimate of what the share of food-grade TiO2 in the total TiO2 demand could be. The Commission could thus not assess the impact that this product exclusion could have on the effectiveness of the duties.

(51) Furthermore, in absence of such estimates, it remains unclear whether or not the two or three Union producers, which CEPI claims are able to produce food-grade TiO2, would be in a position to supply the Union demand for this grade. No additional evidence was provided in that regard, whereas the investigation has shown that sources of food-grade TiO2 also exist in other third countries, such as Canada.

(52) The Commission therefore found no ground to argue that there are not sufficient sources of supply available for this type of product.

(53) Finally, no other users of food-grade TiO2 came forward in the investigation with any data on how anti-dumping duties would impact their business, nor was such evidence provided by CEPI or other sources. The Commission thus did not have any reliable information on the nature of an impact the duties could have on users of this type of TiO2.

(54) In view of the foregoing, CEPI failed to demonstrate that the application of other more relevant factors than those considered by the Commission when defining the product concerned required that the definition of the product concerned be restricted by excluding food-grade TiO2. Moreover, food-grade TiO2 falls within the product definition provided in recital (21) of the provisional Regulation and interested parties provided no evidence demonstrating that this subcategory of TiO2 imported from the PRC is not in competition with any other product available on the Union market.

(55) The Commission could thus not conclude that the elements for product exclusion were met for food-grade TiO2 and rejected this request.