Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1139 of 6 June 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood from 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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 11 October 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ 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 27 August 2024 by Greenwood Consortium (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of hardwood plywood 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 hardwood plywood subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3140 (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 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) After initiation, the complainant, individual importers and the Plywood Trade Interest Alliance (4) (‘PTIA’) made several submissions on the evidence in the complaint relating to dumping, injury, causality and the Union interest. The comments are addressed below. The complainant and PTIA made two additional submissions rebutting each other’s comments, pursuant to Section 8 of the Notice of Initiation. Section 8 provides that any comment on information submitted by interested parties before the deadline of imposition of provisional measures should be made at the latest on day 75 from the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation, unless otherwise specified. The complainant’s submission was timely filed on 20 December 2024, within the relevant deadline. PTIA’s rebuttal comments were submitted on 15 January 2025. As these comments were submitted outside the relevant time limits set by the Notice of Initiation, they could not be taken into account.

(7) PTIA claimed that the complainant indexed and unreasonably treated the already aggregated data for nine companies as confidential which made it impossible to meaningfully understand the substance of the information. In addition, PTIA alleged that the complainant withheld essential data for reason of copyright and that copyright restrictions may not serve as a legitimate ground for withholding non-confidential information from other interested parties.

(8) Regarding the indexation of aggregated data, the Commission found that the different product portfolio of the members of the Greenwood Consortium, the complainant, justified the confidential treatment of the aggregated data. As far as the information withheld due to copyright is concerned, it was found that the general export price level of Chinese hardwood plywood in the period 2010–2024 (5) was of a demonstrative nature rather than essential information rendering the analysis of the complaint unduly difficult.

(9) The Commission thus rejected the claims because it found that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained sufficient essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of otherwise confidential information to allow interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding and complied with the requirements of Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation.

(10) PTIA claimed that the complainant did not submit information as required by Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation, whereas information submitted on other aspects was incomplete.

(11) The Commission rejected the claim because it found that the complaint included prima facie evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury based on information reasonably available. The Commission considered that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained sufficient essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of otherwise confidential information to allow interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding and thus and complied with the requirements of Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation.

(12) PTIA submitted that the complainants, while perhaps satisfying the requirements for representativity of the Union industry under Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation, did not by any means constitute the entire Union industry in the sense of Article 3.

(13) The Commission found that the standing requirement was satisfied because the complaint was supported by EU producers accounting for more than 25 % of the production of the like product in the EU produced by the EU industry, and no EU producer opposed it. For the initiation of the proceedings, beyond proving its standing, the complainant was not required to represent the entire Union industry. The Commission therefore also rejected this claim.

(14) PTIA submitted that the dumping rates calculated in the complaint were excessively high and unduly inflated due to the product mix considered and a different production process in the PRC, which was not duly reflected in the calculations. PTIA further considered that the glue consumption mentioned in the complaint was incorrect, and that certain material was double counted. It also pointed out inconsistencies between the body of the complaint and the annexes. PTIA further argued that the invoices to evidence the export price were non-representative since they only referred to poplar plywood and not to all types of plywood imported to the Union.

(15) Additionally, PTIA submitted that Türkiye was not an appropriate representative country because of the high inflation of the Turkish lira during the investigation period, especially with regard to establishing the selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG & A’) and profit. It furthermore argued that the data of the proposed Turkish company used as a benchmark to determine the profit and SG & A were not representative. It also considered that when calculating the labour costs, the complainant should have used the exchange rate of the European Central Bank instead of the exchange rate provided by the Turkish Central Bank, and that to determine the energy prices, the complainant should have used Turkish statistics and not the website www.globalpetrolprices.com.

(16) The complainant argued that the high inflation in Türkiye had no impact on the determination of the benchmarks since the raw material prices were not expressed in Turkish lira but in EUR or US dollars and that the inflation would not impact the SG & A and profit of Turkish companies since the increase in costs would decrease the profit margin which resulted in a more conservative approach. Also, since the SG & A and profit were expressed as a percentage of the costs of goods sold, they would not be impacted by inflation. The complainant furthermore submitted that the benchmarks were reasonable and representative for the sector. With regard to energy prices, the complainant also argued that the energy data taken from the website www.globalpetrolprices.com were based on the official Turkish statistics.

(17) The complainant also defended that there was no double counting in the calculation of the normal value in the complaint and that the calculations were based on the factors of production and the consumption rates applicable in the PRC and were duly adjusted to take into account the production process in the PRC. It also argued that the glue consumption in the complaint was accurately calculated and based on a reasonable, even conservative, approach. With regard to the claim of PTIA that the export price was not representative, it submitted that the invoices for the poplar plywood in the complaint were presented only as an additional element; the export price determination was based on Eurostat and the price index the Europäischer Wirtschaftsdienst GmbH (6) (EUWID), a trade new media publisher focussing on, amongst other, wood products.

(18) Both the complainant and PTIA submitted comments on the analysis related to the significant distortions in the plywood sector in the PRC. These comments are addressed in Section 3.2.1.4 below.

(19) The Commission duly considered the claims of PTIA on the evidence related to the dumping calculations in the complaint, as well as the additional elements provided by the complainant. It found that the requirements for the initiation of an investigation were met, i.e. that the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence presented by the complainant and determined it was sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.

(20) Furthermore, the Commission considered that this had no impact on the conclusions on the existence of dumping – in this particular case, the prima facie evidence related to the normal value calculations of the different product types, factors of production and its respective consumption was deemed sufficient. The Commission further recalled that the dumping margin calculated in the complaint did not necessarily reflect the exact degree of dumping which will be calculated in the investigation on a transaction by transaction and type per type basis. Indeed, the nature of the analysis was different since it was not performed on a company per company basis, nor per transaction. However, the Commission was satisfied with the level of evidence provided by the complainant on the export price and normal value showing that the dumping margins were significant. Also, the figures on which the normal value was based were supported by sufficient evidence, and all the necessary adjustments to for instance consider a different production process in the PRC were taken into account in the Commission’s analysis of dumping. The Commission thus rejected the claims of PTIA on insufficient evidence of dumping in the complaint.

(21) Furthermore, based on the information provided by the complainant and analysed by the Commission, the proposed choice of Türkiye as a representative country to determine the normal value met the requirement of sufficient evidences. In particular, domestic sales by Turkish producers of hardwood plywood appeared to be sufficiently large, and the production process and access to raw materials was similar to the Chinese producers, and the potential differences in the production process were taken into account in the normal value determination. The Commission also considered that the fact that there was high inflation in Türkiye did not impact the benchmarks which were indeed not expressed in Turkish liras, nor the determination of the SG & A and profit based on Turkish companies.

(22) PTIA argued that the complaint does not meet the standard of positive evidence on injury under Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, claiming that certain injury indicators, such as EU consumption; import prices; EU market share; production capacity and utilisation, domestic sales and turnover; employment; profitability, investments, stocks and production capacity did not support a finding of injury during the investigation period.

(23) The Commission found that the complaint contained sufficient evidence for a prima facie finding of material injury necessary for the initiation of an investigation. Both macroeconomic and microeconomic indicators were analysed in Section 6 of the complaint. The Commission recalls that a prima facie finding of material injury necessary for the initiation of an investigation requires an examination, inter alia, of the relevant factors as described in the basic Regulation. It is not specifically required by Article 5 of the basic Regulation that all injury factors mentioned in Article 3(5) show deterioration in order for material injury to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of the initiation of an investigation. The wording of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation states that the complaint shall contain the 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 (not necessarily all) factors. The complaint contained this information, which pointed to the existence of injury. Accordingly, the Commission considered that the complaint contained sufficient evidence of injury and rejected the claim by PTIA.

(24) PTIA submitted that the complainant based its undercutting and underselling calculation on poplar plywood only, noting that the Commission should base its preliminary and final calculations on all products covered by the scope of the investigation.

(25) The Commission notes that, under the ‘sufficiency of evidence’ standard in Article 5(3) of the basic Regulation, there is no obligation to establish undercutting and underselling for all product types covered by the investigation. Furthermore, in line with the applicable legal rules, the Commission established the undercutting and underselling margins pursuant to the methodology presented below in Sections 4.3.2 and 6.1.

(26) 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

(27) In the 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 volume of production and sales which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sample represented 28 % of the estimated total EU production and 33 % of the estimated total EU sales quantity of hardwood plywood and ensuring a good geographical spread. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. The sample was representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of unrelated importers

(28) 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.

(29) Twenty unrelated importers 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 unrelated importers on the basis of the largest volume of sales of the product concerned in the Union, and their geographic location in the Union. The sample represented 38 % of the estimated total EU sales quantity and ensured a good geographical spread. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known importers concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received.

Sampling of exporting producers

(30) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC 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.

(31) One hundred twenty exporting producers in the country concerned 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 exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union taking into account the main wood species used in the production of hardwood plywood and exported to the Union (poplar, birch and eucalyptus plywood), which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. Based on the information available at the time, the sample represented 9,5 % of exports to the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample.

(32) By email of 29 November 2024, one of the sampled exporting producers, Xuzhou Shengfeng Wood Co., Ltd, informed the Commission that it withdrew its cooperation. On the same day, the Commission decided to add another exporting producer, Xuzhou Hongxin Wood Co., Ltd, to the sample of exporting producers and it informed interested parties of this change by a Note to the file of 29 November 2024. Based on the information available at that stage, the proposed sample accounted for 9,1 % (compared to originally 9,5 %) of the estimated total export quantity of hardwood plywood from the PRC to the Union in the investigation period.

(33) However, the Commission did not receive a response from Xuzhou Hongxin Wood Co., Ltd by the deadline of 3 January 2025. The remaining sampled company, Pizhou Jianghsan Wood Co., Ltd (‘Jiangshan Wood’), represented 5,8 % of exports to the Union. The Commission considered, that, at this advanced stage of the investigation there was insufficient time left to select a new sample of exporting producers and, in addition, given the low quantities of exports to the Union by the remaining exporting producers that provided a sampling reply, any change to the sample would not result in a more representative sample. Therefore, the Commission decided to abandon sampling and apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of dumping. The Commission however accepted the request to calculate an individual dumping margin for Jiangshan Wood (7), in accordance with Article 17(3), as the only company that provided a proper and timely questionnaire response that could be verified in accordance with Article 16(1) of the basic Regulation. The Commission informed interested parties of this decision by a Note to the file of 21 January 2025.