Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/81 of 13 January 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel plated or coated with tin 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), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 16 May 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation regarding imports of flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel plated or coated with tin (‘tinplated products’ (2)) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’, ‘China or ‘the PRC’) based on Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic Regulation’). It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 2 April 2024 by EUROFER (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of tinplated products 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 tinplated products subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2731 of 24 October 2024 (‘the registration Regulation’) (4).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Chinese authorities, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(5) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(6) Several parties opposing the potential imposition of anti-dumping duties provided comments on initiation, arguing that the complaint did not contain evidence to indicate that the Union industry suffered any material injury, nor that it was facing a threat of injury, and is therefore procedurally deficient.

(7) First, to demonstrate the alleged lack of evidence in the complaint concerning the material injury suffered by the Union industry, an unrelated importer, Steelforce Packaging BV (‘Steelforce’), pointed to the performance of the Union industry presented in the complaint. Specifically, Steelforce claimed that the average sales prices remained above average cost of production both in 2022 and in the investigation period used in the complaint, which ran from October 2022 to September 2023 (‘Complaint IP’), resulting in the Union industry being profitable during that period.

(8) Steelforce also contended that, rather than such positive performance being a temporary trend, as the complainant claimed, it was the negative performance in 2020 and 2021 which was of temporary nature, due to the overall disruption of Union’s economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which dramatically reduced demand. Steelforce alleged that years 2018 or 2019 would also show a generally positive trend for the Union industry.

(9) Furthermore, Steelforce claimed that the Union industry’s market share remained very high and largely stable. All these elements showed that the Union industry did not suffer any injury.

(10) Steelforce further claimed the Union industry is not threatened by further imminent injury either, because, as they are not suffering any material injury, any threat can thus only be of future harm.

(11) Steelforce also argued that the complaint’s assertion that imports from China were suppressing and depressing Union industry’s prices was unfounded since it was based on data from only one unnamed Union producer in the complaint, and this data was also not disclosed, precluding Steelforce from properly exercising their right of defence as they could not meaningfully comment on that data or assess the size of the Union producer providing the data.

(12) Finally, Steelforce claimed that the quarterly data on profitability presented in the complaint was not conclusive to the existence of a threat of injury due to the natural seasonality of demand in this market.

(13) Notwithstanding the above, Steelforce claimed that all the evidence and claims presented in the complaint were outdated. First, it argued that the Complaint IP ended in Q3 2023 while the investigation was initiated in May 2024, and thus any evidence provided in the complaint demonstrated, at best, past injury and not its persistence in the present. Second, it claimed that the Notice of Initiation did not show that the Commission would have strived to update the figures in the complaint in order to comply with Article 5 of the basic Regulation. Steelforce thus maintained that the investigation was unlawful claiming that it violated Article 5(3) of the basic Regulation.

(14) Similar to Steelforce’s claims from recitals (7) and (13) above, China Iron and Steel Association (‘CISA’) claimed that the complaint lacked positive evidence justifying the initiation of the proceeding and that the complainant relied excessively on confidential information which did not allow other interested parties to meaningfully respond to allegations contained in the complaint. In particular, CISA claimed that the period considered selected in the complaint was not representative to lead to reliable findings in these proceedings, contrary to the requirements of Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, due to the effects that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the situation on the market. In view of the lockdowns disrupting production, demand, and supply chains in 2020 and 2021, CISA requested the Commission to adopt a period considered which would start in 2019 or 2018 reflecting normal business conditions, so that the extraordinary nature of the Union industry’s performance in 2020 and 2021 would be visible in the trends of micro and macroeconomic indicators.

(15) CISA also argued that the complaint failed to address several factors which had a bearing on the state of the Union industry, including return on investment, ability to raise capital, cash flow, wages, and export performance. Concerning the quality of the non-confidential version of the complaint, CISA claimed that the fact that Union consumption, market share and the macroeconomic dataset was presented as ranges instead of actual figures prevented interested parties from responding to the claims contained in the complaint and therefore breached their right of defence.

(16) The complainant argued that the focus of the material injury assessment in the complaint was based on annual figures and that quarterly trends were provided for further context and as evidence of a threat of injury. Concerning the non-confidential version of the complaint, the complainant argued that the injury data was given in ranges to respect antitrust policies which require that aggregated data must come from at least five companies to be shared, and the complainant producers are only four.

(17) Concerning the claims that there was no sufficient evidence that the Union industry suffered injury in the complaint, the Commission noted that Article 5(2) of the Basic Regulation states that relevant (not necessarily all) factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, must show deterioration in order for material injury to be established.

(18) The complaint showed that after an uptick in 2022, the average profit margin decreased substantially in the Complaint IP. The Commission also noted that the open version of the complaint provided actual figures for the Union sales of the complainant which showed a considerable decline between 2020 and the Complaint IP. The figures of the complainant’s production and employment both showed a considerable drop over that period. In addition, contrary to the claim of Steelforce set out in recital (9), it was clear from the complaint that the market share of the Union industry went down while Chinese imports nearly doubled between 2020 and the Complaint IP. The macroeconomic data, which was provided in ranges in the complaint, also showed declining production, declining sales, and a drop in employment. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the data provided in the complaint could be considered as sufficient evidence pointing to injury.

(19) The use of ranges instead of actual figures for confidential information in the complaint is general practice if they provide sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. The ranges provided in the complaint showed the trend over the period considered and were therefore found to be sufficiently detailed.

(20) As to Steelforce’s claims from recital (11), the Commission noted that Annex 12 of the non-confidential version of the complaint contained a price comparison between the sales price of all complaining Union producers to unrelated customers in the EU and the price of Chinese imports based on statistics which showed that Chinese prices were lower than prices of the Union industry in the complaint investigation period.

(21) Annex 12 of the complaint also contained the aggregate sales volumes of the complaining Union producers to unrelated customers in the EU which showed a steady decline over the period considered with a sharp drop between 2022 and the Complaint IP while the volume of Chinese imports increased significantly over the same period.

(22) In addition, the complainant provided, in the confidential version of the complaint, individual examples from Union producers which had to decrease their sales price to be able to sell their products and the complainant summarized the essence of these confidential documents in points 194 and 195 of the complaint.

(23) The Commission thus concluded that the complainant provided sufficient evidence on price undercutting, volume injury and price suppression required under Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation for the initiation of the investigation.

(24) The Commission noted that the period of investigation used for the purpose of the complaints is often different from the one used in the proceeding itself, given the time lapse between the lodging of a complaint and the initiation of an investigation. The basic Regulation does not set any legal obligation concerning the period for the data contained in the complaint but stipulates that it should contain information reasonable available to the complainant. The Commission considered that the data contained in the complaint was sufficiently recent to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(25) Concerning the period considered for the injury trends, the Commission noted that in line with its usual practice, it analysed the injury indicators for four years preceding the IP and that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed under the injury and causation analysis in recitals (235), (293), (300) and (323). Therefore, the Commission concluded that the period considered was appropriate to assess the injury trends.

(26) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the complaint contained sufficient evidence to indicate that the Union industry suffered injury, that imports from China were dumped and that there was a causal link between dumping and injury. The Commission found that this evidence was sufficient for the initiation of the investigation and rejected the arguments of the other parties in this respect.

(27) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

Sampling of Union producers

(28) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of representativity in terms of the production and sales quantity of the product under investigation during the investigation period and geographic location. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 80 % of estimated total Union production and more than 70 % of estimated Union sales of the like product. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.

(29) Given that no comments were received on the provisional sample, the Commission confirmed it to be the definitive sample as well. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of unrelated importers

(30) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(31) One unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers

(32) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in China to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the PRC to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(33) Eleven exporting producers in China provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of three based on the largest representative quantity of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.

(34) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the authorities of China were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received.

(35) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(36) Furthermore, the complainant provided in the complaint sufficient evidence of raw material distortions in China regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the GOC.

(37) Questionnaires for exporting producers, Union producers, unrelated importers, and users were made available online (5) on the day of initiation.

(38) The Commission received questionnaire replies from the three sampled Union producers, the three sampled exporting producers, one unrelated importer, and two users. Moreover, it received a questionnaire concerning macroeconomic data from the complainant.

(40) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2023 to 30 March 2024 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(41) The product under investigation is tin mill flat-rolled products, of iron or non-alloy steel, coated or plated with tin, whether or not coated with a plastic material and/or varnished (‘tinplated products’), currently falling under CN codes 7210 11 00 , 7210 12 , ex 7210 70 , 7210 90 40 , ex 7210 90 80 , 7212 10 , and ex 7212 40 (TARIC codes 7210 70 10 15, 7210 70 80 20, 7210 70 80 92, 7210 90 80 20, 7212 40 20 10, 7212 40 80 12, 7212 40 80 30, 7212 40 80 80, and 7212 40 80 85) (‘the product under investigation’).

(42) Tinplated products are a packaging material, mainly used in the production of tin cans. They form part of the steel sector as they are mainly produced from cold rolled steel coils which are then electroplated with tin.

(43) The product concerned is product under investigation originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’).

(45) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(46) One exporting producer, Baosteel Group, and CISA both requested a product exclusion for double reduced tinplated products (‘DRT’). They both claimed that DRT has distinct production process and physical characteristics compared to other tinplated products, insofar that it is thinner, flatter, and easier to process, while also having higher yield strength. Furthermore, DRT has its own production standards (DIN EN 10203, DIN EN 10202, and JIS G3303) and Baosteel Group claimed that there is lack of supply of such tinplated products in the Union.

(47) CISA additionally asked to exclude drawn and ironed tinplated products (‘DIT’) from the product scope as well. They claimed that DIT production includes ironing the product which has already been drawn out into a cylinder, a process which reduces wall thickness while maintaining the diameter of the cylinder. This makes the cans lightweight and strong enough to withstand internal pressures, specifically tailored for its main application – use as beverage cans for carbonated drinks. CISA claimed that DIT and other tinplated products are thus not substitutable and highlighted that DIT also has its own production standard (DIN EN 10202). CISA further claimed that EU demand for DIT often exceeds supply and pointed out that US Department of Commerce (‘DOC’) has accepted this exclusion within Section 232 measures on steel and aluminium (Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962).

(48) The complainant disputed those claims, and they were not supported by any users. The complainant argued that DRT was produced on the same production line and equipment, the only specificity being that rolling speeds in the final stage of the process are higher. Furthermore, standards DIN EN 10203, DIN EN 10202, and JIS G3303 cover not only DRT but also single reduced tinplated products, while Union producers’ catalogues show that DRT and single reduced tinplated products often have same uses. In addition, the complainant argued that the fact that certain importers in the United States obtained from the US Bureau of Industry and Security temporary authorisation to import DIT based on the absence of US production of this type of tinplated products has no bearing to the present investigation.