Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/670 of 4 April 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam

(278) Hence, the target profit which was established in this investigation and in accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation ranged between 6,8 % and 7,85 % according to the situation found in each of the sampled companies.

(279) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by applying the respective target profit margins to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period.

(280) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Based on the submitted information, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established an additional cost in a range between EUR 15,28/tonne and EUR 41,12/tonne, in comparison with the cost of compliance with such conventions during the investigation period. This additional cost was added to the non-injurious price.

(282) Having found that the underselling was higher than the dumping, the analysis of the raw material distortions became moot as the anti-dumping duty cannot be higher than actual dumping.

(283) According to the evidence in the complaint, exports of iron ore and coking coal that respectively accounted for [30-40 %] and [26-39 %] of the cost of production Vietnam, were subject to export duties.

(284) In its analysis of the distortions of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, as stated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission examined all distortions covered by that provision.

(285) The Commission first identified the main raw materials used in the production of the product concerned by each of the cooperating exporting producers. As main raw materials were considered those raw materials which were likely to represent at least 17 % of the cost of production of the product concerned.

(286) The investigation confirmed that both iron ore and coking coal were among the main raw materials used in the production of the product concerned and that they each accounted for more than 17 % of the cost of production of each of the exporting producer. During the investigation period, both companies however imported both iron ore and coke from several different suppliers and countries, due to an inexistant or insufficient domestic production, and the generally low quality of the domestic production. Therefore, the purchase prices by the exporting producers of these two raw materials were not found affected by domestic prices and could not be subject to domestic distortions.

(287) The Commission concluded that the existence of distortions on the iron ore and coking coal could not be established.

(288) In relation to Japan and Egypt, the injury suffered by the Union industry would be removed if Union producers were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

(290) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, users and consumers.

(291) The Union industry is located in several Member States (France, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, Poland, The Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Hungary and Spain), and employs around 38 047 employees, directly working for the like product in the different primary steel makers of the Union producers (see recital (216)).

(292) Fifteen producers cooperated during the investigation. None of the known producers opposed the initiation of the investigation. As concluded in section 4.5, the situation of the whole Union industry deteriorated as a result of dumped imports from the countries concerned. Material injury was shown in both the micro and the macro indicators and particularly material when it comes to the profitability, sales volumes and market shares of the Union industry.

(293) Anti-dumping measures against imports from the countries concerned are expected to restore fair trade conditions on the Union market and enable the Union industry to obtain sustainable profitability levels for such a capital intensive industry. As a result, Union producers are expected to recover from the injurious situation, further invest and reach their different commitments, including social and environmental ones.

(294) The non-imposition of measures would mean heavier losses within the Union industry, endanger its viability and probably lead to the closure production facilities and dismissals.

(295) The Commission therefore concluded at this stage that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(296) As mentioned in recital (31) no unrelated importer completed a questionnaire or provided the Commission with individual elements showing to what extent importers would be harmed by the imposition of measures. However, several importers which were grouped in the Consortium came forward by providing general comments on Union interest.

(297) The Consortium is an ‘ad hoc’ organisation which was formed for the purpose of defending the interest of certain users, SSC as well as importers of the product under investigation following the initiation of the investigation at hand.

(298) The Consortium submitted comments opposing to the imposition of duties arguing that they would lead to (i) lack of adequate supply from European steel mills which nominal capacity is much higher than their actual capacity; (ii) unbearable cost increase for downstream industries; (iii) competitive disadvantage of users vis à vis the related users (i.e. SSC related to primary steel makers); and (iv) distortions of the worldwide supply chain since users and steel service centres would be put at a clear disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors in third countries. In addition, one hearing was held on their request.

(299) The Consortium claimed that it accounted for more than 50 % of the total imports of the product under investigation from the countries concerned and that the imposition of antidumping duties would have severe negative effects on users/importers’ business activities. HRF is the main raw material used by users in the production of downstream products. It is the main cost item for them, and they are strongly relying on imports from third countries to supply users and SSC in the Union.

(300) As mentioned in recital (298), the members of the Consortium were also directly competing with the Union industry which is processing the product concerned on a captive sale or use basis for similar downstream products sold in the free market. Since the Consortium represented both the interests of two users which cooperated in the investigation, these claims were therefore analysed in more details in the next chapter.

(301) Two users, based in Italy (Marcegaglia Carbon Steel Spa) and Spain (Network Steel S.L.), with imports from the countries concerned and producing inter alia tubes, pipes and downstream steel products came forward and provided a questionnaire reply. The product concerned/like product was a major cost item for these users. Other users came forward but did not provide a questionnaire reply. Both Network Steel S.L. and Marcegaglia Carbon Steel Spa were opposed to the initiation as well as the possible imposition of measures.

(302) Union users compete with the related companies of the Union producers on the downstream markets of the product under investigation. They use the product under investigation as a raw material for the manufacture of downstream products such as cold-rolled flat, coated steel, hollow sections, welded tubes and profiles in different qualities, and also use it as industrial output for a variety of applications, including construction, shipbuilding, gas containers and pressure vessels.

(303) The activity of the steel industry is closely linked to the economic cycle, and is significantly affected by the general economic conditions, consumption trends as well as the global production capacity and the fluctuations in the international trade of steel and the tariffs imposed.

(304) Several parties raised competitiveness and competition-related issues. An exporting producer argued that the imposition of measures against the countries concerned would lead to an (enhanced) oligopoly in the Union, while unrelated users complained that Union producers place independent SSC and users in a less competitive situation than the related ones. The complainants contested the second claim on the grounds that their transactions with related SSC are at arm’s length.

(305) The Commission found the oligopoly claim unjustified in light of the number of steel-producing mills and groups in the Union as mentioned in recital (317). Union producers show healthy competition amongst them and will continue competing with imports from third countries, which will not stop.

(306) As to the second claim, the Commission deemed the claim unfounded namely to the extent the Union industry supplies significant quantities to the independent SSC and users that provided questionnaire replies, both on arm’s length price.

(307) The two users claimed that their business was highly dependent of imports, not only in terms of volumes, but also on certain types of raw material with high quality and thickness characteristics that the Union industry was either not able to produce, with some few exceptions, or not willing, as it would lower the productivity of the hot rolled production line. Furthermore, they alleged that third country suppliers were particularly reliable. The investigation however revealed that they would be able to source these products from other exporting producers in third countries like India or Vietnam, which were found not be dumping, as well as exporting producers from countries like South Korea or Taiwan. Their respective estimated capacity production of HRF was respectively of 21,8 million tonnes and 12,5 million tonnes in 2023.

(308) The users alleged that due to the increase of the price of their raw material and the scarcity of the product concerned on the free market, resulting from the application of measures against the countries concerned, users would not be able to compete on equal footing with exporting producers of downstream products produced from the product under investigation in third countries.

(309) Furthermore, according to the same users, exporting producers in the countries concerned could be tempted to concentrate on exports of value-added steel products made from the product concerned such as galvanised coils, pre-painted coils, cold-rolled coils, welded tubes, etc. should measures be applied against HRF.

(310) Finally, SSC located in the Union might relocate their production of downstream products in third countries, which could severely endanger the economic sustainability of unrelated users, such as re-rollers, tube producers, service centres, that also provide the Union downstream markets with capillarity, service orientation and employ, directly and indirectly, thousands of workers.

(311) These two users alleged that the imposition of measures on imports from the countries concerned would lead to a situation whereby they would no longer have access to reliable sources of supply of the product under investigation on the Union market, in particular of high quality coils used for re-rolling. They alleged that Union producers have still relatively high market share and they can exercise a strong pressure both on the market of the product under investigation as on the downstream market.

(312) In order to decide whether the imposition of measures was in the Union interest the Commission considered the situation of other interested parties, the users, namely the Steel service centres (SCC). Steel service centres are companies that deal with the service-related activities of the steel industry. They act as an intermediary between primary steel makers, steel distributors and consumers, offering value-added services such as cutting, slitting, and shaping steel products according to customer specifications. According to EUROMETAL (12), in 2023, 150 SCC groups or companies processed flat metal products with an estimated shipment capacity of 31,3 million tons. The sector provides more than 20 000 direct and indirect jobs in the EU. Independent SSCs are estimated to have a market share of 48 %, the rest belonging to primary steel makers owned SSC or primary steel makers’ partners’ SSC. Primary steelmakers and steel processors are in competition also with third country imports and therefore, share the challenges and concerns caused by global overcapacity.

(313) First, the Commission noted that the objective of anti-dumping duties is not to close the Union market from any imports, but to restore fair trade by removing the effect of injurious dumping. Imports from the countries concerned are therefore not expected to come to an end, but to continue, albeit at non-dumped prices.

(314) Second, the Commission found that the users were not exclusively dependent on imports from the countries concerned, but also purchased the like product during the investigation period from Union producers as well as from producers found not to be dumping in third countries such as India, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan.

(315) Third, because most of imports from the countries concerned are expected to continue after the imposition of anti-dumping duties, and since alternative sources of supply with no anti-dumping measures will still remain (South Korea, Taiwan and India), the claim that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would result in the Union industry being able to exercise strong price pressure is unfounded. The Union industry consists of 22 producers which provide users with a wide range of supply already within the Union, in addition to the option of imports from third countries which produce and export the like product.

(316) Furthermore, according to industry specialised sources (13) whilst tariff-free quotas under the safeguard measures applicable to steel products (14) were exceeded for some third countries like Vietnam, Japan and Taiwan, other countries such as India or South Korea, however, remained underutilised, leaving scope for importers to diversify their sources to maintain supply. In fact, according to the steel market analysis company MEPS International, ‘many importers have already been able to diversify their supply chain. HRFS import volumes have increased since the introduction of the 15 % “other countries” cap. This apparent uptick [.] helped to maintain downward pressure on hot rolled coil prices recorded by MEPS in the second half of last year’(2024). Therefore, the Commission rejected the claim that the imposition of measures would lead to a shortage of supply of the product concerned/like product.

(317) Furthermore, with the existence of several producers belonging to different groups headquartered in various countries, the market cannot be considered as highly concentrated or even controlled by a limited number of large steel producers. In fact, the presence of several undertakings players in the market indicates a highly competitive environment.

(318) There was no evidence that independent users and traders were put in an unfavourable negotiating position vis-à-vis Union producers, nor that users would be forced to relocate production outside the EU. Moreover, as mentioned above, the purpose of antidumping measures is not to suppress competition from imports, but merely to ensure that they are traded on fair terms, i.e. at non-dumped prices. Imports can continue to enter the EU after imposition of measures; they would, however, be sold at fair prices.

(319) The Commission also concluded that anti-dumping measures would not strengthen the position of EU producers at the expense of downstream sectors. With a competitive market and the availability of spare capacity among EU producers, contrary to what was argued by the users, prices should remain competitive.

(320) It was noted that the estimated total Union production capacity of HRF is over 90 million tonnes and thus significantly exceeds the Union consumption (free and captive), which has been estimated at around 66 million tonnes. It is therefore highly unlikely that maintaining the measures would lead to any scarcity of supply.

(321) Finally, the investigation also revealed that the users that provided a questionnaire reply actually performed better than the Union industry as far as the processing and resale of the product under investigation is concerned during the investigation period and most of the period considered despite the competitive market conditions on the EU market.

(323) In comparison, the situation of the EU producers is even more fragile since they cannot raise prices without risking a loss of sales to competitors offering lower prices, whether EU producers or imports, particularly since hot rolled flat steel products are a price-sensitive commodity. Users would easily shift to alternative, more affordable supplies.

(324) As far as the impact of measures on the users is concerned, the Commission considered that the users could already cope with the existence of safeguard measures amounting to 25 %, once the duty-free quotas were exhausted, without showing losses thanks to their flexibility, leaner cost structure and ability to offer products with a higher added value and profit margin.

(325) On this basis and considering the relatively similar level of the proposed duties, the existence of alternative sources of supply, the Commission concluded that the effects of a potential imposition of duties on users would not be significant and do not outweigh the positive effects of measures on the Union industry. Indeed, the above analysis rather shows that the imposition of duties would have a limited impact on users of HRF.

(326) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam at this stage of the investigation.

(327) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

(328) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam, in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins (see recital (288)). The amount of the duties was set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

(330) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in [country concerned]’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(331) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in [country concerned]’.

(332) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(333) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(334) As mentioned in recital (3), the Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration. Registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation.

(335) In view of the findings at provisional stage, the registration of imports should be discontinued.

(336) No decision on a possible retroactive application of anti-dumping measures has been taken at this stage of the proceeding.

(337) In accordance with the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE’s website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them. Following comments received from NSC and EZZ, the Commission made corrections to the calculations where warranted. Comments following pre-disclosure with respect to methodological or other aspects of the investigation, not related to the accuracy of the calculations, will be considered at the definitive stage of the investigation.

(338) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

(339) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following products are excluded:

(1) products of stainless steel and grain-oriented silicon electrical steel;

(2) products of tool steel and high-speed steel;

(3) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 600 mm or more; and

(4) products, not in coils, without patterns in relief, of a thickness of 4,75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm and of a width of 2 050 mm or more.

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 1 shall apply for a period of six months.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 April 2025.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.

(2) Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel, originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam (OJ C, C/2024/4995, 8.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4995/oj).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2719 of 24 October 2024 making imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel, originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam subject to registration (OJ L, 2024/2719, 25.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2719/oj).

(4) Egyptian Accounting Standard no.13, amended by Cabinet resolution no.1568/2022.

(5) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2743.

(6) Article 6.1 of the basic Regulation.

(7) See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 of 5 April 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 92, 6.4.2017, p. 68, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/649/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ L 258, 6.10.2017, p. 24, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/1795/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey (OJ L 238, 6.7.2021, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1100/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969 of 8 June 2017 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/649 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 146, 9.6.2017, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/969/oj).

(8) EUROSTAT data were amended to reflect the export volume reported by the Vietnamese exporting producers for the investigation period.

(9) ECJ, Case C-315/90 Gimelec v Commission EU:C:1991:447, paragraphs 16 to 29; Report of the WTO Appellate Body 24.7.2001, WT/DS184/AB/R, para 181 to 215.

(10) Regulation (EU) 2019/287 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 February 2019 implementing bilateral safeguard clauses and other mechanisms allowing for the temporary withdrawal of preferences in certain trade agreements concluded between the European Union and third countries (OJ L 53, 22.2.2019, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/287/oj).

(11) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100.

(12) European Federation of steel tubes and metals distribution and trading. Members are the national federations of steel, metals and tubes distribution as well as distribution, Steel Service Centres and trading companies having cross border activities in European OECD countries.

(13) MEPS International – Global Steel Prices, Edition January 2025.

(14) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p. 27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/159/oj).