Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/501 of 18 March 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of glass fibre yarns 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 16 February 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of glass fibre yarns (‘GFY’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’ or ‘the country 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 3 January 2024 by Glass Fibre Europe (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of GFY 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) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 16 September 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.

(4) No comments were received regarding the accuracy of the calculation.

(5) On 15 October 2024, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of GFY originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 (3) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the users Proxim and Kelteks.

(8) A third user filed a written submission and was heard. However, the user requested that their comments be treated as confidential and did not provide a non-confidential summary of the submission and the hearing. Consequently, in accordance with Article 19(3) of the basic Regulation the Commission disregarded the information provided by this user in its analysis, as it could not be satisfactorily demonstrated from appropriate sources that the information was correct.

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

(10) 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 GFY originating in China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(11) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Solidian & Kelteks and Rymatex.

(12) In the absence of any comments, recitals 1 to 2 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(13) After provisional disclosure, the complainant remarked that in recital 8, the name of one of the Union producers was misspelled. The Commission acknowledges that correct name is Valmieras Stikla Skiedra AS.

(14) In the absence of other comments on sampling, the conclusions in recitals 7 to 18 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(15) After provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer, Schaeffler Friction Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd, enquired about the individual examination. However, contrary to the requirement in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation this company did not submit a response to the questionnaire for exporting producers within the deadline specified in the Notice of Initiation. Therefore, the application was rejected.

(16) Following provisional disclosure, a verification visit pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation was carried out at the premises of the users Proxim in Poland and RELATS, S.A.U. in Spain.

(17) The complainant noted that also in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the name of one of the Union producers was misspelled. The Commission acknowledged that this name should be corrected to Valmieras Stikla Skiedra AS, Valmiera, Latvia.

(18) In the absence of any comments, recital 25 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(19) Recital 26 of the provisional Regulation set out the definition of the product concerned. The product under investigation is glass fibre yarns, whether or not twisted, excluding glass fibre slivers, glass fibre cords and chopped strands, currently falling under CN codes ex 7019 13 00 and ex 7019 19 00 (TARIC Codes 7019 13 00 10, 7019 13 00 15, 7019 13 00 20, 7019 13 00 25, 7019 13 00 30, 7019 13 00 50, 7019 13 00 87, 7019 13 00 94, 7019 19 00 30, 7019 19 00 85).

(20) The fibre cords, which, together with glass fibre slivers and chopped strands, are not part of the product scope, are strong textile glass fibre structures made by twisting, plying, cabling, or braiding filament or staple fibre yarns.

(21) With respect to the product scope, on 13 November 2024, the user P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (‘P-D Glasseiden’) requested that a product called Compofil, a combination of glass and thermoplastic fibres, be excluded from the product scope. The product is currently imported under CN code 7019 19 00 .

(22) Based on the evidence provided by P-D Glasseiden and its own research, the Commission concluded that Compofil had different basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics from the product concerned and was therefore not part of the product concerned. The Union industry agreed with this conclusion.

(23) Based on the above considerations, the Commission clarified that the product scope of the investigation did not include Compofil.

(24) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments on the procedure for determining the normal value in this case under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(25) The Commission’s provisional findings in recital 41 of the provisional Regulation were, therefore confirmed.

(26) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments on recital 43 that sets out the terms of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(27) The Commission’s provisional findings in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation were, therefore, confirmed.

(28) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments regarding the existence of significant distortions. Therefore, the provisional finding of recital 70 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(29) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments regarding the selection of the representative country. Therefore, the provisional findings in recital 92 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(30) Following provisional disclosure, the complainant referred to recital 105 of the provisional Regulation and reiterated its request for a clarification from the Commission on whether oxygen was included under consumables. The complainant further requested that oxygen be treated separately, asserting that it represents a significant cost factor.

(31) The Commission confirmed that it considered all inputs in the normal value calculation, either separately or aggregated as consumables. Verified data from Henan Guangyuan showed that oxygen is not a significant cost in manufacturing. Additionally, no evidence was provided by the complainant to prove otherwise. As a result, the request was denied.

(32) No other comment was received regarding raw materials. Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals 98 to 107 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(33) No comments were received regarding the other factors of production (labour, electricity, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, steam and water). Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals 108 to 116 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(34) No comments were received regarding manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A and profits. Therefore, the provisional findings and conclusions in recitals 117 to 125 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(35) No comments were received regarding the calculation of the normal value. Therefore, recitals 126 to 130 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(36) No comments were received regarding the export price. Therefore, recitals 131 to 134 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(37) No comments were received regarding the comparison. Therefore, recital 135 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(38) No comments were received regarding the dumping margin calculation. Therefore, recital 146 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(40) In the absence of comments on the determination of the Union industry and Union production, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 147 and 148 of the provisional Regulation.

(41) In the absence of comments on the determination of the relevant Union market, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 149 to 154 of the provisional Regulation.

(42) In the absence of comments on the Union consumption, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 155 to 158 of the provisional Regulation.

(43) In the absence of comments on the imports from the country concerned, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 159 to 163 of the provisional Regulation.

(44) In the absence of comments on the price of the imports from the country concerned, price undercutting and price depression, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 162 to 167 of the provisional Regulation.

(45) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 168 to 171 of the provisional Regulation.

(46) In the absence of comments on the production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 172 to 175 of the provisional Regulation.

(47) In the absence of comments on the sales volume and market share, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 176 to 178 of the provisional Regulation.

(48) In the absence of comments on the growth, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital 179 of the provisional Regulation.

(49) In the absence of comments on the employment and productivity, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 180 and 181 of the provisional Regulation.

(50) In the absence of comments on the magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 182 and 183 of the provisional Regulation.

(51) In the absence of comments on the prices and factors affecting prices, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 184 to 186 of the provisional Regulation.

(52) In the absence of comments on labour costs, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 187 and 188 of the provisional Regulation.

(53) In the absence of comments on inventories, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 189 and 190 of the provisional Regulation.

(54) In the absence of comments on the profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 191 to 196 of the provisional Regulation.

(55) The conclusions reached in recitals 197 to 199 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(56) As indicated in recital 203 of the provisional regulation Chinese importers had substantially increased their market share over the period considered and maintained a high market share in the IP while selling at injurious prices. Moreover, as explained in recital 203 of the provisional Regulation the complainant provided evidence that users were building up high stocks in 2022 and started to become reluctant to source from the EU industry in 2023. After provisional measures no party contested the information contained in that recital. In any case, the Commission considered that all other elements on the file were sufficient to maintain the conclusion that the Chinese dumped imports caused the material injury of the Union industry.

(57) As already established at provisional stage, China increased its market share significantly throughout the period considered and maintained a high market share in the investigation period (from 15 %-25 % in 2020 to 30 %-40 % in the investigation period, that is an increase by 68 %). Besides, the level of the Chinese export prices to the Union during the IP was extremely low when compared both with the Union industry sales prices and their cost of production. As indicated in the tables 4 and 8 of the provisional Regulation, the average import price from China was 1 720 EUR/tonne, while the average price of the Union industry was [2 150–2 250] EUR/tonne and unit cost of production [2 280–2 330] EUR/tonne. In addition, as indicated in recital 166 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission established significant undercutting both for the cooperating exporting producer and for all other imports from China as well as significant price suppression, as pointed out in recital 198 of the provisional Regulation. Only due to these low prices, China maintained its market share in a context of a weakening demand while the Union industry could not recover its costs because of the low-priced Chinese exports. In the context of increasing cost of production of the Union industry during the investigation period, the average price of the imports from China during the investigation period was already lower than the prices and cost of production of the Union industry in 2022 when the latter was still profitable. This further illustrates the price injury caused by the dumped imports during the investigation period.

(58) In view of the above and in the absence of any comments, recitals 201 to 204 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(59) In absence of any comments, recitals 205 to 209 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(60) In absence of any comments, recitals 210 to 211 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(61) In absence of any comments, recitals 212 to 213 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(62) In absence of any comments, recital 214 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(63) In absence of any comments, recitals 215 to 225 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(64) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions on causation as set out in recitals 226 to 227 of the provisional Regulation.

(65) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recitals 229 to 242 of the provisional Regulation.

(66) As provided by Article 9(4), third subparagraph, of the basic Regulation, and given that the Commission did not register imports during the period of pre-disclosure, it analysed the development of import volumes to establish if there had been a further substantial rise in imports subject to the investigation during the period of pre-disclosure described in recital 3 and therefore reflect the additional injury resulting from such increase in the determination of the injury margin.

(67) Based on data from the Surveillance 3 database, import volumes from China during the four weeks period of pre-disclosure were 2 % lower than the average import volumes in the investigation period on a four-week basis. On that basis, the Commission concluded that there had not been a substantial rise in imports subject to the investigation during the period of pre-disclosure. Therefore, the Commission did not adjust the injury elimination level in this regard.

(69) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, several new interested parties came forward. As indicated in recital 6, five users and one unrelated importer submitted comments. Hearings were held with two of those users. The complainant made a submission addressing the arguments raised by the other interested parties.

(70) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recital 245 of the provisional Regulation.

(71) In its comments on the provisional findings, FIBKO, an independent importer and distributor of GFY argued that the Union producers lacked the production capacity to meet the demand for GFY from independent fabric manufacturers who therefore buy GFY from importers and distributors. FIBKO argued that the Union industry, which also manufactured fabrics and products from GFY, had production shortages and lacked both the capacity and the willingness to supply independent users with the necessary quantities of GFY. In addition, FIBKO expressed its concerns regarding fair competition mentioning a potential emergence of monopolistic practices by the integrated Union producers.

(72) FIBKO did not substantiate its claims concerning supply shortages on the Union market nor did it provide any evidence in this respect. In fact, the Commission found at provisional stage that the production capacity of the Union producers of [130 000–150 000] tonnes in the IP was higher than the total Union consumption of [98 000–118 000] tonnes in the same period (4). In any event, the imposition of anti-dumping duties does not prevent an independent importer from continuing to import GFY from China under fair market conditions or from other third countries and to continue to supply users with the quantities of GFY which they need for their production.

(73) The argument of a potential emergence of monopolistic practices is addressed in section 7.3.1 below.

(74) In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recital 246 of the provisional Regulation.

(75) Following the imposition of provisional measures, several users commented that the measures would create a dominant position of the two Union producers on the Union market and would lead to supply shortages. They argued that it would be against the Union interest to impose measures on GFY. They also requested that the measures, if imposed, include the downstream products made of GFY originating in other non-EU countries which use cheap Chinese GFY as raw material in order to protect users from unfair competition from third countries on their market.