Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/393 of 26 February 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of epoxy resins originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand

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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 1 July 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of epoxy resins (‘epoxy resins’) originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand are further considered as ‘the countries concerned’) 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 6 June 2024 (’the Complaint’) by the Ad Hoc Coalition of Epoxy Resin producers (‘the complainant’). The Complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of epoxy resins 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) 2024/2714 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Thai authorities, known importers, 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) The Committee of epoxy resin and applications of China petroleum and chemical industry federation (‘ERC’), acting on behalf of the Chinese epoxy producers (4) submitted that the Union industry failed to meet the sufficient evidence standard for initiating the present proceeding and the Commission failed to duly verify the content of the Complaint. According to the ERC, information on all the factors listed in Article 3(3) and (5) of the basic Regulation should have been included in the Complaint.

(7) First, the legal standard of evidence required for a complaint under Article 5 of the basic Regulation (‘sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation’) makes it clear that the quantity and quality of information in the complaint is not the same as the one on which the Commission bases its findings at the end of an investigation. In fact, the complaint needs to include sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link which is reasonably available to the complainant. Further to that, Article 5 of the basic Regulation does not require that all injury factors mentioned in Article 3(5) are analysed or show deterioration to establish sufficient evidence of material injury. Indeed, the wording of Article 5(2) of the Basic Regulation states that the complaint must contain information on changes in the volume of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices of the like product on the Union market and the consequent impact of the imports on the Union industry, as demonstrated by relevant (but not necessarily all) factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, such as those listed in Articles 3(3) and 3(5). In the present case, the Commission’s analysis of the evidence provided by the complainants, in accordance with Article 2 of the Basic Regulation, has yielded the result that the Complaint contained sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causality. Therefore, ERC’s claim is dismissed.

(8) The ERC claimed that the non-confidential version of the Complaint and its exhibits did not permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the redacted information and highly complicated the ability of other interested parties to provide meaningful comments. More specifically, the ERC contended that all injury indicators at Union-wide level as well as data for the complaining producers were presented in the form of ranges without substantiation, that numerous sources of information were withheld and that certain exhibits containing dumping margin calculations entirely restricted all substantive data that would allow the ERC to address the dumping allegations raised.

(9) The Thai exporting producer Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) Limited (‘Aditya Birla’) equally contended the excessive confidentiality granted by the Commission to the complainants, which they argued was contrary to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The claim related to redacted information in the Complaint regarding various market reports (ECH Market Report, 2022 CEH Epoxy Resins, Tecnon Orbichem), letters of support, supporting evidence for the dumping and undercutting/underselling calculations (including missing undercutting and underselling analysis for Thailand), and the analysis of impact of COVID-19 on the Union industry.

(10) First, the Commission found that the information provided in the Complaint, including the information redacted for confidentiality reasons, permitted a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in line with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation. Due to the structure of the Union industry, the Commission accepted ranges for the micro-economic and macro-economic indicators. The ranges given for the injury indicators did provide sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted and assess the trends of all the injury indicators, especially since an index was given for each indicator.

(11) Besides, specifically for the confidentiality restrictions on injury indicators and information sources disputed by the ERC, the said data was placed on the open file by the complainant after initiation in its reply to the macro questionnaire in unrestricted, unindexed form along with a specification of sources used.

(12) Regarding the dumping allegations, the Commission found that the information set out in the body of the Complaint did allow the ERC to make meaningful comments on the subject-matter. The dumping calculations in the open version of the Complaint provided a detailed explanation of all different elements used to arrive at the dumping calculation, including all sources used for these calculations. The normal value was based upon the cost structure of the Union industry and therefore the Commission found it reasonable that a narrow range of the normal value for each of the countries concerned was given in the open version of the Complaint. Aditya Birla did not provide any reasoning why the information submitted in the open version the Complaint regarding the calculation of the dumping margin was insufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding.

(13) Regarding Aditya Birla’s claims, ranges or indications of trend evolution from market reports or in relation to injury and dumping calculations were provided in non-confidential summaries to a sufficient level of detail. Contrary to the claim of Aditya Birla, the price undercutting/underselling analysis for Thailand is part of the body of the Complaint, while the same information is mirrored in Exhibit 5.4. Moreover, certain information (such as quotes from telephone call reports) is confidential by nature and not susceptible to a non-confidential summary. In addition, the various reports referred to in the Complaint were subject to copyright but readily available to other interested parties. Finally, regarding the other claims from the party, for example on trade analysis, letters of support and the impact of COVID-19, no substantiation was given why the open version did not permit a reasonable understanding and could therefore not be duly assessed by the Commission.

(14) In conclusion, as set out above, the non-confidential version of the Complaint and its exhibits permitted reasonable understanding of the substance included therein and hence the procedural rights of the parties have been respected.

(15) The ERC also submitted that the PRODCOM data on industrial production provided by Eurostat for the relevant product group would show a different state of the Union industry from that presented in the Complaint.

(16) The data provided in the Complaint covers 70-80 % of the Union production and originates from the complainant itself. On the other hand, PRODCOM data is gathered through a voluntary survey of Union producers, and its accuracy cannot be independently verified. For the reasons above, the complainant did not err in disregarding PRODCOM database in preparing the complaint. Therefore, ERC’s argument was rejected.

(17) Aditya Birla maintained that the data provided in the Complaint pertains to an investigation period from October 2022 to September 2023, whereas the Notice of Initiation refers to a different investigation period. According to Aditya Birla, the comments on import data, injury, and dumping can only be based on the period covered in the Complaint or otherwise such approach would amount to a breach of rights of defence. Aditya Birla further claimed that, for the purposes of establishing standing, the Complaint did not allow the exporting producer to assess the relevant information on the Union producers and production.

(18) First, the Commission is not bound by the investigation period set out in the Complaint in conducting its investigation and in fact should in principle set the investigation period closer to the date of initiation of the proceedings. Second, the results of the standing exercise in which 4 companies came forward representing around 80 % of the Union production, have been placed on the open file and are hence available to all interested parties for inspection. Therefore, Aditya Birla’s allegations are dismissed as unsubstantiated.

(19) According to Aditya Birla, the imports from Thailand were much lower in comparison to the imports from other two countries concerned and, thus, Thailand should have been excluded from the investigation.

(20) Imports from Thailand represented a market share above 1 %, which is the threshold below which an investigation cannot be initiated as established by Article 5(7) for initiation. Therefore, Aditya Birla’s claim cannot be accepted.

(21) 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

(22) 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 the largest representative production and sales volume in the Union during the investigation period. This sample consisted of two Union producers (Westlake and Blue Cube/Olin). The sampled Union producers accounted for around 60 % of the total Union production. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received, and the sample was considered representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of importers

(23) 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.

(24) Two unrelated importers (Cortex and Comexim) 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 in Thailand

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

(26) There was only one exporting producer in Thailand known to the Commission at the initiation of the investigation. No further exporting producers came forward. Therefore, the Commission deemed it was not necessary to select a sample and proposed this exporting producer to be investigated. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the known exporting producer concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned, were consulted on this decision. No comments were received.

Sampling of exporting producers in the Republic of Korea

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

(28) Four exporting producers in Korea provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission has sampled the two Korean exporting producers with the largest quantity of exports to the Union. They represented over 90 % of the total export volume from Korea to the Union during the investigation period.

Sampling of exporting producers in Taiwan

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

(30) There were only two exporting producers in Taiwan known to the Commission at the initiation of the investigation. No further exporting producers came forward. Therefore, the Commission deemed it was not necessary to select a sample and proposed those two exporting producers to be investigated. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the known exporting producers concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned, were consulted on this decision. No comments were received.

Sampling of exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China

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

(32) Ten exporting producers or groups of 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 two groups representing around 80 % of Chinese imports during the investigation period, on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the countries concerned (as well as of Korea) were consulted on the selection of the sample.

(33) The exporting producers Chang Chun Chemical (Panjin) Co., Ltd. (CCPJ) and Chang Chun Chemical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (CCJS) (together ‘Chang Chun Group’) argued that their aggregate export volume represents 20 % of the Union imports of epoxy resins during the investigation period, which is higher than the other sampled group. Moreover, since the Chang Chun Group was also sampled in Taiwan, the group argued that the Commission could capture the majority of the group’s exports to the Union if it would also sample the Chang Chun Group in China. Finally, the Chang Chun Group argued that their accounting system is different than those of the sampled companies in China, since they are a Taiwan owned group.

(34) The Commission confirmed that, contrary to the claim, the export volume of the Chang Chun to the Union was below the volume declared by the two sampled groups. Moreover, the Commission selected a sample which could reasonably be investigated within the time available and therefore could not account for other factors such as accounting methods or the overall export volume of Chang Chun Group from China and Taiwan to the Union. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

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

(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 with regard to China. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaire in this regard to the GOC.

(37) The questionnaires to the sampled companies in China, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand were made available online (5) on the day of initiation.

(39) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘the IP’). 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’).

(40) ERC claimed that the investigation period (the ‘IP’) set by the Commission at initiation is missing an entire quarter between the end of the IP and the initiation date. Furthermore, according to the ERC, selecting 2020 as a benchmark for assessing the import volumes and prices portrays a distorted image since that year has been driven by non-market forces causing a low point in terms of imports volumes due to logistics problems and extremely volatile prices. ERC suggested that Commission adopts a period considered starting on 1 January 2019 to reflect the normal business conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical turbulence that followed.

(41) One of the unrelated importers, Cortex, also called for an extension of the period considered by including year 2019, which, in the importer’s view, was a year in which normal conditions existed in the market.