Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1151 of 11 June 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of vanillin 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 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 24 May 2024 the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of vanillin 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 9 April 2024 by Syensqo (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of vanillin 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) 2024/2716 (‘the registration Regulation’) (3).

(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, known exporting producers and the PRC authorities, known importers, suppliers and users, traders 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) One user, Frey & Lau GmbH (‘Frey & Lau’), which is also an importer, registered as an interested party but did not submit a questionnaire reply. It expressed its opposition to the initiation of the investigation. Its arguments have been summarised below.

(7) Frey & Lau submitted that, since the complainant Union producer did not manufacture all types of vanillin, it could not constitute the Union industry for those types of vanillin that it did not manufacture. It also referred to imports by the complainant Union producer itself as a factor to undermine its status as a genuine Union producer. This claim is addressed under Section 4.1 below.

(8) As addressed in more detail in Section 2.4 and 4.1 below, the complainant Union producer could constitute the Union industry as per the basic Regulation, since its production of the like product constituted more than 98 % of total Union production of the like product as defined in recitals (41) and (44). Therefore, the Union producer constitutes the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation for the like product defined in the aforementioned recitals.

(9) Frey & Lau claimed that the calculations of the normal value presented by the complainant are incorrect since the theoretical Bill of Materials used for ethylvanillin and synthetic vanillin should not be considered for Brazil, the representative country proposed by the complainant, as there is no production of such product types of vanillin in that country. Frey & Lau also claimed that the complainant calculated the dumping margin for two products which are not produced in the Union, notably ethylvanillin and bio-vanillin, and that the calculation of a single dumping margin for all types of vanillin is not appropriate given the different price ranges of the four types of vanillin. In their claim, Frey & Lau proposed to use India as the appropriate representative country. It submitted that India would be suitable as representative country as it would have a similar level of economic development as China, export prices of vanillin from India would be comparable to those from China and there would be production of vanillin in India.

(10) The Union industry replied to the comments submitted by Frey & Lau on the complaint, clarifying that the calculations of the normal value and dumping margin are in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. On this issue, the Commission noted that Frey & Lau did not submit evidence to support its allegation that the calculations of the normal value and dumping margin by the Union industry are erroneous, nor did it submit revised calculations. Its claim was therefore rejected.

(11) The Commission noted that India does not belong to the group of countries within the same level of economic development as China, as per definition of the World Bank. China is considered an upper-middle income country, whereas India is considered a lower-middle income country. Therefore, the claim to consider India as representative country was rejected.

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

(13) As mentioned in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission made available questionnaires to the only two known Union producers, namely to the complainant and Ennolys. Sampling of Union producers was not considered necessary.

(14) 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.

(15) Two unrelated importers came forward and submitted questionnaires replies. Only one of them provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the limited number of replies, the Commission considered that sampling was not necessary.

(16) The Commission received questionnaires replies from two users that also were importers, one of which is referred to in the previous recital. See Sections 7.2 and 7.3 below.

(17) 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.

(18) Six 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 on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The selected sample consisted of two exporting producers Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical Co., Ltd (‘Jiaxing Zhonghua’) and Jiangxi Brother Pharmaceutical Co. (‘Jiangxi Brother’), Ltd. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. The Commission received no comments on the selected sample and the sample was therefore confirmed on 11 June 2024.

(19) In the course of the investigation, the Commission established that the Brother Holding, owner of majority stake of the shares of Jiangxi Brother, owns also a significant stake of the shares of Jiaxing Zhonghua. Both parties declared that they do act independently from one another. However, the Commission concluded that because of a third party directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding 5 % or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both exporting producers, the latter have to be considered related within the meaning of Article 127(d) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (4).

(20) Following disclosure of definitive findings, Jiangxi Brother contested the Commission’s conclusion that Jiangxi Brother and Jiaxing Zhonghua should be treated as related parties. It reiterated that both companies operate independently and are not in any meaningful way connected in terms of ownership, management or market conduct and in practice they are direct competitors in the vanillin market. However it did not put into question the Commission’s assessment that a third party directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds 5 % or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both exporting producers. The claim was therefore rejected.

(21) In view of the facts explained in recital (19), the final sample consists of two related entities.

(22) As mentioned in recital (28), on 20 December 2024, in accordance with Article 19a(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties by a Note to the File of its intention not to impose provisional measures. As explained in the Note to the File, this decision was due to the technical complexity of the case. In other words, in view of this technical complexity, the workload associated with the sampled exporting producers was already such that it precluded the imposition of provisional measures. Against this background, the Commission decided that any individual examinations would be unduly burdensome and would jeopardise the timely completion of the investigation within the meaning of Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. In the definitive disclosure, the Commission explained that one non-sampled exporting producer in the PRC – Xiamen Oamic Biotech Co., Ltd (‘Oamic’) – had requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, it stated that the company had failed to submit a questionnaire reply within the deadline set by the Commission. In its comments on the definitive disclosure, Oamic pointed out that this statement was factually incorrect, as it had submitted a questionnaire reply. Whilst the Commission acknowledged its clerical error and the fact that Oamic was correct, nevertheless, this does not alter the conclusion that, due to the complexity of the case and the workload arising from the sampled exporting producers, any individual examinations would have been unduly burdensome and would have prevented the investigation from being completed in a timely manner. Accordingly, the request for individual examination submitted by Oamic was rejected.

(23) The Commission sent questionnaires to the known Union producers, users and the sampled exporting producers. The same questionnaires were made available online on the day of initiation.

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

(25) Questionnaire replies were received from the complainant Union producer, two Union users and the sampled exporting producers in the PRC.

(27) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 (‘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’).

(28) Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures was 24 January 2025. On 20 December 2024, in accordance with Article 19a(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed the interested parties of its intention not to impose provisional measures.

(29) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings.

(30) When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties.

(31) On 8 April 2025, 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 vanillin originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure. Following the assessment of a comment submitted by the exporting producer Oamic, a supplementary disclosure was sent to all parties on 16 April 2025 (‘supplementary final disclosure’).

(32) Following the disclosure of definitive findings, the Commission received submissions from Arethia Services Germany GmbH & Co. KG (‘Arethia’), a newly registered interested party (user); the user Frey & Lau; the complainant, the Chinese exporting producers Jiangxi Brother, Oamic and Chongqing Thrive Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. (‘Thrive’); Orchidlinn Biotech Co. Ltd (‘Orchidlinn’), a producer of the product concerned that did not export to the Union during the investigation period. Orchidlinn requested a hearing in the presence of the Hearing Officer in trade defence proceedings, which was held on 13 May 2025. Also, a hearing took place with Oamic on 23 April 2025.

(33) Orchidlinn informed the Commission that it was preparing a new exporter review request to be submitted once measures would be imposed. It considered that the Commission had changed its conclusion on sampling after it had realised and corrected the erroneous description of Oamic’s situation, as explained in recital (22). However, it held that the sampling procedure and the determination of the individual examination constitute two distinct and legally sequenced procedures, whereas the sampling procedure comes first and the individual examination findings are made subsequently. It argued that a change in the second step, individual examination, cannot result in a change in the preceding step, which is sampling.

(34) The Commission agreed that, in view of the correction made with regard to Oamic as mentioned in recital (33), it had also discovered and corrected a clerical error in the preceding paragraph of the final disclosure document. That paragraph concerned sampling and was replaced by a paragraph which is reflected in recital (22) of this regulation. Interested parties were thus fully informed on the correction in the supplementary final disclosure document. Orchidlinn argued that the Commission had failed to justify why it considered that sampling had not been abandoned, as it had erroneously stated in the document issued on 8 April 2025. However, as mentioned in recital (18) above, in the course of the proceeding, the Commission informed interested parties that six exporting producers had come forward in the sampling exercise (5) and that it had selected a sample of two which, absent of any comments, it had shortly afterwards confirmed to interested parties (6). At no later stage it had revoked or abandoned that sample. The mentioning of abandoning sampling in the document sent to interested parties on 8 April 2025 was thus clearly erroneous and the Commission made use of the sending of the supplementary final disclosure document, on 16 April, to correct also that clerical mistake.

(35) Orchidlinn also submitted that the sample lacked representativity, as the product type it produces, natural vanillin, is not produced by either one of the sampled parties. With regard to this claim, as concluded in the analysis under Section 2.4, the Commission had concluded that the scope of the investigation was correctly defined and the four product types, natural vanillin being one of them, are substitutable and in direct competition with each other. The Commission further reiterated that the sample had been selected on the basis of Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, i.e. by selecting the largest representative volume of exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. A sample representing more than 80 % of imports is by all means representative.

(36) Finally, Orchidlinn urged the Commission that, if the Commission would maintain that sampling has been applied, it would nevertheless allow new exporting producers of natural vanillin to seek for individual dumping margins through a new exporter review as that product type is not produced by the sampled parties. The Commission failed to see any legal basis for such course of action as Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, which regulates the determination of individual margins of dumping for new exporting producers, explicitly mentions that it does not apply where duties have been imposed under Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where sampling has been applied. In any event, the possibility to request refunds periodically in accordance with Article 11(8) remains possible.

(37) Oamic claimed that the Commission’s Note for the File of 20 December mentioned in recital (28) did not comply with the requirement under Article 19(a)(2) as Oamic was through that Note not informed whether its request for individual examination had been accepted or not. However, Article 19(a)(2) obliges the Commission to inform interested parties on the non-imposition of provisional measures within a certain time limit, not to provide them with an interim report. Moreover, as already stated in recital (22), the Note mentioned that the non-imposition of provisional measures had been due to the technical complexity of the case. The Commission finally observed that Oamic had never inquired whether the Commission intended to assess the request for individual examination or contacted the Commission between the submission of its request for individual examination, on 3 July 2024, and its comments to the final disclosure, submitted on 11 April 2025. The claim was rejected.

(38) Oamic submitted that the two sampled parties should have been treated, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, as a single group entity. Therefore, it argued, sampling had indeed not been necessary. It understood that the weighted average duty rate under the sampling provision means that the margin of dumping shall be calculated on the basis of (at least) two unrelated, separate and independent cooperating parties.

(39) With regard to this claim, the Commission confirmed that sampling had been applied, as six exporting producers had come forward and the Commission had selected the largest two companies amongst those to form the sample. Parties had also been informed accordingly and accepted that decision, as recalled in recital (34) above. Dumping and injury calculations had been made for and disclosed to each of the two parties individually, as the Commission found that Jiangxi Brother and Jiaxing Zhonghua did in practice not operate as one single entity. That is different from situations where there are close operational links between related parties and normal value, export price, dumping and injury are therefore calculated by combining the relevant financial data from the companies concerned and only one dumping and one injury calculation is made for the group. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 127(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, however, the Commission considered them related (see recitals (19) to (21)). Thus, Jiangxi Brother and Jiaxing Zhonghua should be attributed the weighted average duty of the two of them, and the same weighted average duty was attributed to the non-sampled cooperating parties, for the reasons explained in recital (187).