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

(192) The user Frey & Lau, which is also an importer, claimed that the complainant did not have sufficient standing pursuant to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, since it closed down its production of synthetic vanillin and the remaining production of natural vanillin constituted very limited volumes. Moreover, Frey & Lau also referred to Syensqo’s relationship to a Chinese exporting producer – Solvay Zhenjiang Chemicals Co Ltd – as a reason for not meeting the requirement of a genuine Union producer within the meaning of the basic Regulation.

(193) The complainant recalled that its decision to temporarily close its manufacturing of synthetic vanillin was directly related to price competition by dumped imports from the PRC. Moreover, the mothballing of this manufacturing process was done after the end of the investigation period, and since it is a temporary action in response to price competition, its production during the investigation period should be included in the calculation of standing pursuant to Article 5(4 ) of the basic Regulation.

(194) The complainant recalled that the basic Regulation sets a threshold for a complaint to be considered to have been made by, or on behalf of, the Union industry. This is the case if the complaint is supported by those Union producers whose collective output represents more than 50 % of total production of the like product produced by that portion of the Union industry expressing either support for or opposition to the complaint. Given that the complainant’s production represented 98 % of Union production during the investigation period, the complainant qualified to constitute the Union industry as per the basic Regulation.

(195) With regard to its common ownership with a Chinese exporting producer, the complainant claimed that this relationship did not influence its long-term business model in the Union, which had been exemplified by its decision to lodge the anti-dumping proceeding against the PRC, which would also cover its own related entity.

(196) The Commission considers that the complainant constituted the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of the basic Regulation since its production of vanillin constituted 98 % of total Union production of the like product within the Union. While the Union Industry indeed closed down some production operations, this took place after the end of the investigation period and was a temporary action in response to the prevailing market situation and should not impact its standing in this proceeding.

(197) The Commission considers that the mere fact that a part of the Union industry has an economic relationship with a Chinese exporting producer does not per se disqualify a Union producer to be treated as such under the basic Regulation. The Chinese exporting producer related to the Union industry only supplied limited quantities of the product concerned to the Union market, which could be regarded as a temporary act in order to keep its Union customers without further economic effects.

(198) Set against the claim by Frey & Lau that the injury picture in the complaint is flawed, given that the Commission considers all types of vanillin as like product (see recital (49)), the Union industry is correctly defined as including the complainant and consequently, the injury analysis to be carried out in this investigation also involves an assessment of the situation of the complainant.

(199) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of: (i) the verified sales of the Union industry; and (ii) all the imports from third countries into the Union.

(201) While EU consumption was stable during the first two years of the period considered, it was volatile during 2022 and the investigation period. The supply chain of many goods was disrupted due to lack of workforce in many exporting countries (such as in the country concerned) and exacerbated by a shortage of shipping possibilities and sudden events such as the blockage in the Suez Canal (which triggered shipping prices to increase) and later on by the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine (resulting in energy price increases notably in the Union) (97).

(202) The Union demand at the level of the users increased in 2022, but then reversed during the investigation period, resulting in a drop by 23 % between 2022 and the investigation period.

(204) The market share of the Chinese exports to the Union was established by comparing export volumes with the Union market consumption (see Table 3 above).

(206) Table 4 shows that during the period considered imports from the PRC increased in absolute terms by 34 %. In terms of market share, imports from the PRC increased from 42 % to 65 % during the period considered, or by around seven percentage points annually.

(207) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of import data from Eurostat. Price undercutting of the imports was established based on verified questionnaire replies of the sampled exporting producers in the PRC.

(209) While prices were stable during the first two years of the period considered, this price stability was replaced by a period of high volatility during 2022 and 2023, where there was a sudden increase in prices in 2022, during which prices increased by 40 % when compared to the previous year.

(210) This trend was reversed during the investigation period, when prices were almost halved when compared to 2022, with prices during the investigation period being 27 % lower than they were in 2020.

(212) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates and discounts.

(213) The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the known Union producer’s theoretical turnover during the investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of between 45 % to 55 % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market. Undercutting was found for all of the imported volumes of the sampled companies.

(214) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(215) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic and the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the complaint and the questionnaire reply of the only Union producer cooperating (the complainant). As the complainant represents 98 % of the total Union production and the other Union producer is small, both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(216) As mentioned in recital (190), while the actual figures are in ranges, the indexes are based on the real figures.

(217) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

(218) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(220) Total production encompasses both the production volumes of Synthetic Vanillin and of Natural Vanillin, each having separate production lines.

(221) In line with Union consumption (see Table 3 above), the Union industry’s production volumes were stable during the first two years of the period considered.

(222) In 2022, despite the increased EU consumption, an increase in the cost of production (as explained in recital (239) below), forced the Union industry to cut back on production volumes in order to keep a sustainable price level.

(223) In 2023, when EU consumption decreased, and with import prices from the PRC cut in half (see Table 5 above), the Union industry was forced to cut back even further on production, with production volumes during the investigation period at only 39 % of those in 2020 and 2021.

(224) Production capacity was stable over the period considered. The slightly higher capacity in 2022 and 2023 is due to shorter periods of planned regular maintenance.

(225) The production capacity utilisation rate mirrors the development of production. While the utilisation rate was satisfactory during 2020 and 2021, during the cut down of production volumes as mentioned above, the utilisation rate of the production equipment decreased to a very low level, a level which is not financially sustainable in the longer term.

(227) Reflecting the evolution of EU Consumption (see Table 3), sales volumes on the Union market were kept stable during the first two years of the period considered.

(228) Following the supply-chain disruption referred to in recital (201) that inter alia increased the cost of certain raw materials and energy for the Union industry, as mentioned in recital (222), the Union industry had to selected orders on the basis of what was financially sustainable. Hence, sales volumes decreased by 6 % between 2021 and 2022.

(229) When the supply chain disruption ended in 2023, the trend reversed and prices of imports from the PRC on the market fell drastically (see Table 5 above). The Union industry had to cut back even more on sales volumes since the prevailing price level did not cover the full cost of manufacturing. Hence, sales volumes during the investigation period fell by more than half compared to the volumes sold during 2020 and 2021.

(230) The Union Industry has suffered negative growth during the period considered. While the situation was stable in 2020 and 2021, this changed in 2022, a year when while sales volumes fell further, price increases compensated for the lost volumes and total turnover increased.

(231) In the investigation period, as Chinese import prices halved, the Union industry could no longer compete, and it lost significant sales volumes and hence sales revenues.

(233) During the period considered, employment in the Union increased by 6 %. Despite lower production volumes during 2022 and the investigation period, the complainant did not furlough or dismissed the highly trained and qualified staff in the expectation that the market situation would normalise, and higher production volumes could resume.

(234) It follows from the previous recital and recital (222) that productivity dropped significantly during the period considered, as staff was used for maintenance and other expected tasks while production volumes decreased.

(235) All dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned.

(236) This is the first anti-dumping investigation regarding the product concerned. Therefore, no data were available to assess the effects of possible past dumping.

(238) The Union industry’s average sales prices on the Union market were rather stable between 2020 and 2021 and increased as from 2022 onwards including the investigation period. The higher average sales prices partly reflected the increase in demand on the European market in 2022 (see recital (201)), but partly also to cover the increased costs of production.

(239) Reflecting increased costs for inter alia energy and higher fixed costs per unit due to lower production capacity utilisation rate, the average cost of production increased by 44 % during the period considered.

(240) It should be noted that the portion of fixed manufacturing costs (manufacturing overheads) out of the total manufacturing costs is rather small, between 9 % and 15 % of unit cost of production during the investigation period.

(241) Moreover, Union industry also incurred costs associated with the production process interruption, less efficient production/start-up costs, due to the lower production volumes. These amounted to between 5 %–10 % of unit cost of production during the investigation period.

(242) Hence, the lower production volumes in 2022 and 2023, including production interruptions and higher fixed costs (manufacturing overheads and SG&A), impacted the unit cost of production by some 15 %–25 %.

(244) During the period considered, and apart from 2022, the average labour cost per employee was rather stable, with a small decrease in the investigation period. The increase in salary that occurred in 2022 was due to accrued bonuses paid for certain staff pertinent to financial performance of previous years.

(246) The level of stocks increased during the period considered by 77 % in absolute terms, mainly in 2022 and 2023 when the volatility of the market took place.

(247) In relation to production, the level of stocks increased as from 2022 onwards. As a percentage of production volumes, the level of stocks increased from 13 %–17 % in 2022 to 47 % to 57 % in 2023. Indeed, in 2023, the level of stocks represented approximately half of the production volumes during that year.

(248) The reason for this increase in stocks in relation of production is twofold.

(249) Due to the expectation of reduced production volumes ahead (the mothballing of the synthetic vanillin production line as from May 2024, as mentioned in recital (193), was planned and communicated well ahead of that month), and in order to avoid a shortage of synthetic vanillin to its customers, the complainant started to build up stocks as to enable it to also continuously serve its customers with synthetic vanillin.

(250) The increase of stock in relation to production is also due to the much lower levels of production of synthetic vanillin.

(252) The profitability on Union sales increased during the first three years of the period considered. During 2020 and 2021, as noted in Table 9, average sales prices were stable, while unit cost of production was decreasing.

(253) This situation changed in 2022, when both average Union sales prices but also unit cost of production increased. In the investigation period, there was increased price competition. The Chinese import prices dropped significantly while the Union industry’s unit cost of production increased on a yearly basis, resulting in a considerable loss for the Union industry.

(254) The loss was to a limited degree caused by lower production volumes, resulting in higher unit cost (as noted in recitals (239) to (242), the portion of fixed costs out of total unit cost is limited to between 10 %–20 %). However, the main factor causing the loss was fierce price competition by dumped imports. During the investigation period the Union industry sold the product under investigation below its cost of production in order to avoid losing even more market share.

(255) The evolution of cash flow mirrors the evolution of profit during the period considered, with a negative cash flow during the investigation period.

(256) The return on investments (fixed assets) also reflects the profitability development, with a clear negative return on investments in the investigation period.

(257) The complainant’s ability to raise capital has not been severely hampered, since it forms part of a major group of companies and the access to finance is managed at group level.

(258) The Union industry performed well at the beginning of the period considered, with injury indicators generally at healthy levels and on an upward trend during 2020 and 2021.

(259) However, 2022 saw a sudden change of the situation on the market for the Union industry, with a sudden increase of both prevailing sales prices as well as unit cost of production.

(260) This trend reversed in 2023, when the users needed to reduce their stocks as not to tie up their capital in raw materials, and when Chinese exporting producers continued their penetration of the Union market accelerated by even more aggressive price competition. Prices of imports from China in 2023 were half of those in the previous year.

(261) With unit cost of production driven upwards by high cost of raw materials and energy, in 2023, the Union industry had to focus on those orders where sales prices at least to some extent covered the unit cost of production. But these volumes were by far from sufficient and the Union industry had to cut back significantly on production.

(262) In the end, the Union industry’s market share had decreased by 52 %, from [27 %–30 %] to [12 %–15 %], while the market share of imports from the PRC increased from 42 % to 65 %.

(263) In summary, extremely aggressive Chinese import prices in the investigation period, well below both the Union industry’s unit cost of production and average sales prices forced the Union industry to cut back on production and reduce its sales on the Union market, resulting in a significant loss of [– 15 % to – 18 %] during the investigation period.

(264) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

(265) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. These factors are: imports from other third countries, export performance of the Union industry, Union consumption and other factors related to costs and imports from the PRC by the Union industry.

(266) As set out in recital (206), the import volume of the product concerned from the PRC increased by 34 % during the period considered, thereby increasing the Chinese market share on the Union market by 23 percentage points from 42 % to 65 %. During the same period, as set out in recital (226), the Union industry saw its sales volume decrease by more than 50 % and its market share dropping from [25 %–30 %] to [10 %– 5 %]. This happened in a context where Union consumption was volatile and decreased overall by 14 % during the period considered.

(267) It should be noted that the period preceding the investigation period, i.e. 2020–2022, the Union industry increased its profit in parallel with an increase in import volumes from the PRC. Indeed, the Union industry lost both sales volumes and market shares during this period. The reason for the Union industry still being able to generate a profit was due to the increase in market prices up to 2022.

(268) During the investigation period, when the market prices suddenly decreased, due to the dumping behaviour by the Chinese exporting producers, the situation of the Union industry deteriorated rapidly.

(269) As shown in Section 4.3.2 above, for the investigation period, by comparing average unit prices of the Union industry in Table 9 with the Chinese import prices from Eurostat in Table 5, the Chinese imports were significantly undercutting the Union industry prices. Indeed, during the investigation period, the average import price from China was less than half of that of the Union industry, when the Union industry had to significantly cut back production due to reduced sales volumes.

(270) Therefore, the Commission concluded that, during the investigation period, a significant increase in dumped imports from the PRC at prices that were significantly undercutting Union prices, caused material injury to the Union industry.

(271) The Commission also examined whether other known factors, individually or collectively, are capable of attenuating the causal link established between the dumped imports and the material injury found to exist to the effect that such link would no longer be genuine and substantial.

(273) As set out in recital (206), import volumes of the product concerned from the PRC increased by 34 % during the period considered. In parallel, import volumes from the United States decreased by 27 %, falling to a market share of [13 % to 15 %] during the investigation period, while imports from Norway decreased by 42 %, falling to a market share of [3 % to 5 %] during the investigation period. Volumes from other third countries were marginal.

(274) While the average import prices of vanillin originating in Norway (Table 13) constantly exceeds the average sales price of the Union industry (Table 9), the average import price from the United States undercut the Union industry’s average sales price by around 30 % over the period considered.

(275) It should be noted that most, if not all, of the volumes of imports from the United States stem from an exporting producer that is related to the complainant, and whose exports to the Union, while falling into the description of the product concerned, complements the type of the like product manufactured in the Union, and is resold by the Union industry both on the Union market and on its export markets. The type of vanillin imported from the United States that complements the Union industry’s production in the Union represents between 85 % and 95 % of all imports from the United States by the Union industry.

(276) Hence, the lower average price of the imported quantities from the United States reflects the lower cost of manufacturing of ethylvanillin compared to the type of vanillin that is manufactured in the Union (natural vanillin and synthetic vanillin).

(277) The prices of imports from other third countries stem from very low quantities. The low quantities entails that their impact has been marginal.

(278) For the imports from third countries, the Commission concluded that aside from the fact that these imports were not made at prices below the prices of the Union industry (which is the case for imports from Norway) or complemented the Union industry’s offer to its European customers (which is the case for imports from the United States), these imports were still made at prices significantly above those of the imports from the PRC. Hence, they did not break the causal link between dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(280) The export volume of the Union industry decreased considerably during the period considered, by 64 %. The loss of market shares on the export markets was mainly due to competition from exports originating in the PRC.

(281) The loss of export sales volume had a negative effect on the production volume and capacity utilisation of the Union producer, thus contributing to an increase in its fixed costs per unit produced.

(282) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the export performance of the Union industry, while it had contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry, it did not break the causal link between the dumped imports from the country concerned and the material injury found.

(283) As explained in Section 4.2 above, consumption of vanillin decreased during the investigation period.

(284) Moreover, given the volatility during 2022 and 2023, there is a high uncertainty to which extent the decrease of consumption (i.e. sales to users) mirrors a decrease in actual usage of vanillin.

(285) To conclude, it cannot be excluded that a decrease of consumption, i.e. sales of vanillin to users in the Union, has had a negative impact of the financial performance of the Union industry. However, given the increased market share of Chinese imports at dumped prices, the Commission considers that the decrease of the Union consumption does not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the country concerned and the material injury found.

(286) When it comes to cost of production, as noted in recital (239), the unit cost increased by 25 % during the period considered. The Commission examined whether this increase could have had any impact on the material injury suffered by the complainant. Despite the increased energy costs (mainly gas) following the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Union industry was prevented from passing-on its costs in view of the surge of heavily dumped imports in the investigation period.

(287) With regard to fixed costs as noted in under Section 4.4.3.1, when the production volumes decreased, the fixed costs per unit produced increased. The Commission examined whether the evolution of fixed costs per unit produced could have had any impact on the material injury suffered by the complainant. The conclusion is that the relative increase in fixed costs as share of unit costs of production is due to the lower production volumes, which can be attributed to lower sales volumes caused by unfair competition with dumped imports and not by an absolute increase (98) of the fixed costs themselves. Therefore, the relative increase of fixed costs does not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the country concerned and the material injury found.

(289) It follows from the above that the volumes of imports from the related exporting producer in the PRC increased by 52 % during the period considered, reflecting, on the one hand, the Union industry’s commitment to sell vanillin to its customers, but on the other hand, the inability to cover the unit cost of production at its European manufacturing site during a period when the price of the dumped imports was halved (see recital (208)).

(290) In terms of share of total imports from the PRC, while the volumes increased in absolute terms, the share of the imports for which the Union industry was responsible for remained at between 7 % and 14 % throughout the period considered.

(291) These imports have, to some extent, contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry by contributing to the negative price development noted during the investigation period. However, these imports do not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports by unrelated exporting producers, which were responsible for 86 % to 93 % of total import volumes, and the material injury suffered by the Union industry, as established by the investigation.

(292) As set out above in recitals (259) to (264), following a stable market situation in 2020 and 2021, the Union industry faced a different market situation in 2022.

(293) As explained in recital (201), there was an increased demand post-COVID-19 pandemic, which led to increased sales prices in the Union. Hence, the Union industry could keep its profit margins even if costs for energy increased in parallel. The market situation also attracted significant volumes of imports from China.

(294) This trend completely reversed during the investigation period, when imports from China met this new market situation by aggressively cutting sales prices, by around 50 %.

(295) The Union industry could not follow the aggressive price behaviour and had to cut back on its production volumes and, to a limited extent, started to import increased volumes from its related company in the PRC in self-defence.

(296) The Union industry was also facing aggressive price behaviour on its export markets, with export volumes lost to Chinese exporting producers.

(297) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The effect of these factors on the Union industry’s economic situation during the investigation period was however limited.

(298) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. The injury consists notably of reduced production and sales volumes, profits, market share, return on investments and utilisation of capacity.

(299) To determine the level of the measures, under Article 9(4), second subparagraph of the basic Regulation the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

(300) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry 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.

(301) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the PRC, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (‘R&D’) and innovation (‘IRI’), and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

(302) As a first step, the Commission established a basic profit covering full costs under normal conditions of competition. In the absence of data showing a higher profit achieved under normal conditions of competition, the Commission used at this stage a target profit of 6 % as provided in Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation. This constitutes a conservative approach compared to the profits achieved by the complainant in 2021 and 2022, which however, were affected by the post-COVID-19 recovery.

(303) The Union Industry provided evidence that its level of expenses related to Investments, Research & Development and Innovation (‘IRI’) during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition. To reflect this in the target profit, the Commission calculated the difference between IRI expenses under normal conditions of competition as provided by the Union industry and verified by the Commission with actual IRI expenses over the period considered. Such difference, expressed as a percentage of turnover, was 1,2 %.

(304) Such percentage of 1,2 % was added to the basic profit margin of 6,0 % mentioned in the recital (302), leading to a target profit of 7,2 %.

(305) 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, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia to the basic Regulation that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. In the absence of available evidence, no additional future costs were added.

(306) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious weighted average price in the range of EUR 20 200–22 200 per tonne for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital (304)) to the cost of production of the complainant as shown in Table 9 and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation.

(307) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the Union producer on the Union market during the investigation period.

(309) Following the above assessment, definitive anti-dumping duties should be set at the level of the injury margin in accordance with Article 9(4), second subparagraph of the basic Regulation.

(310) 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.

(311) The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users.

(312) The investigation has shown that the Union industry is suffering material injury caused by the dumped imports from the country concerned. These imports significantly undercut the Union producer’s prices, and caused significant loss of market share and profits towards the end of the period considered, and during the investigation period, as explained in recitals (214) to (298) above.

(313) The imposition of measures would likely prevent a further surge of imports from the PRC at very low dumped prices. Without measures, Chinese exporting producers will continue to dump the product concerned on the Union market preventing the Union industry from resuming full production, from selling at an adequate price and from generating a sufficient profit and thus causing further material injury to the Union industry.

(314) It was therefore concluded that imposing measures on imports of the vanillin from the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(315) The Commission did not receive a questionnaire response from any Union importer whose business is solely to import and resell the product concerned.

(316) The Commission, thus, concluded that it is unlikely that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on vanillin originating in the PRC will have a negative effect on the situation of unrelated importers and traders in the Union.

(317) Two users who are also importers came forward in the investigation and provided replies to the questionnaire. One of them thereafter refused to allow for a verification of the questionnaire reply, and the Commission sent a non-cooperation letter pursuant of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(318) The sole Union user that fully cooperated, including allowing the Commission to conduct a verification of its questionnaire reply, stated that it was against the imposition of duties on Chinese imports of vanillin, as it considered that such duties would undermine its ability to source raw materials from several origins, considering that the complainant was the sole Union producer of certain types of the like product.

(319) For this user, the cost of vanillin was material for those final products which included vanillin as input. At the same time, the sales of these products generated a positive contribution to the company’s overall financial result.

(320) Nevertheless, this user acknowledged the need for a Union producer to obtain a sustainable profit on its Union sales.

(321) Thus, measures re-establishing a level playing field on the Union market would not be against the interest of Union users, since it would safeguard the supply of vanillin from several sources including from the Union, and not allow for a monopolistic situation of imported vanillin.

(322) In the light of the above, it is concluded that the imposition of any anti-dumping measures is unlikely to affect seriously the situation of the users.

(323) Following disclosure of definitive findings, Frey & Lau and the new interested party, Arethia (see recital (54)), stressed the severe impact that any anti-dumping measures would have on the downstream industry, including on their own.

(324) In this context, the Commission noted that neither Frey & Lau nor Arethia submitted questionnaires, which would enable the Commission to measure the impact that any measures would have on them. The Commission could therefore only measure the impact at the level of the downstream industry on the basis of the information provided by the user that fully cooperated (see recital (318)). This user did not provide comments to the definitive disclosure and on this basis, the Commission considered that the conclusion drawn in recital (322) remained valid.

(325) 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 definitive measures on imports of vanillin originating in the country concerned.

(326) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports of the product concerned.

(327) On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rate expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be set at the level of 131,1 %.

(328) As mentioned in recital (3), the Commission made imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.

(329) As provisional measures were not imposed in this proceeding, the conditions as set out in Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation for the retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty were not met.

(330) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (99), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(331) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2716.

Article 3

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

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

Done at Brussels, 11 June 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) OJ C, C/2024/3241, 24.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3241/oj.

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2716 of 24 October 2024 making imports of vanillin originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L, 2024/2716, 25.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2716/oj).

(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/2447/oj).

(5) TRON document t24.004546 of 3 June 2024.

(6) TRON document: t24.004732 of 10 June 2024.

(7) In particular the subsector of organic chemicals and food additives, which is the focus of the present investigation.

(8) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959 of 17 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of erythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/1959, 19.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1959/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180 of 16 October 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/607 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2023/2180, 17.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2180/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752 of 12 April 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 100, 13.4.2023, p. 16, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/752/oj).

(9) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 161-162; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 89-90; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 70.

(10) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 103-113; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 46-50; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 49.

(11) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 114-122; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 51-55; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 50-54. While the right to appoint and to remove key management personnel in SOEs by the relevant State authorities, as provided for in the Chinese legislation, can be considered to reflect the corresponding ownership rights, CCP cells in enterprises, state-owned and private alike, represent another important channel through which the State can interfere with business decisions. According to the PRC’s company law, a CCP organisation is to be established in every company (with at least three CCP members as specified in the CCP Constitution) and the company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organisation. In the past, this requirement appears not to have always been followed or strictly enforced. However, since at least 2016 the CCP has reinforced its claims to control business decisions in SOEs as a matter of political principle. The CCP is also reported to exercise pressure on private companies to put ‘patriotism’ first and to follow party discipline. In 2017, it was reported that party cells existed in 70 % of some 1,86 million privately owned companies, with growing pressure for the CCP organisations to have a final say over the business decisions within their respective companies. These rules are of general application throughout the Chinese economy, across all sectors, including to the producers of the product under review and the suppliers of their inputs.

(12) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 123-133; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 56-65; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 55-63.

(13) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 134-138; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 66-69; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 64.

(14) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 139-142; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 71-72; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 65.

(15) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 143-152; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 72-81; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 66.

(16) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024, SWD(2024) 91 final, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2024)91&lang=en, including the previous version of the document: Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 20 December 2017, SWD(2017) 483 final/2, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)483&lang=en.

(17) Such as: WTO Trade Policy Review 2021, WT/TPR/S/415; US Department of Commerce and International Trade Administration, C-570-054, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminium Foil from the People’s Republic of China, 26 February 2018.

(18) Report, p. 109.

(19) Ibid., p. 6.

(20) Ibid., p. 312.

(21) Ibid., p. 321.

(22) Ibid., p. 217.

(23) Ibid., p. 223.

(24) Ibid., p. 234.

(25) Ibid., p. 270.

(26) Ibid., p. 246.

(27) Ibid., p. 254.

(28) See US Department of Commerce and International Trade Administration, C-570-054, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminium Foil from the People’s Republic of China, 26 February 2018.

(29) Ibidem.

(30) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2011 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 410, 18.11.2021, p. 51, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/2011/oj), recitals 126 and 140; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 36, 17.2.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/191/oj), recitals 188 and 203-208.

(31) Report, p. 343.

(32) Jiaxing Zhonghua is due to set up a new company and build a new production site (Shandong Wanhua). This new entity has the approval from the Chinese authorities to build up to 10 kT synthetic vanillin and 3 kT ethylvanillin capacity.

(33) See Jiangxi Brother annual report 2023, p. 66, available at: https://q.stock.sohu.com/newpdf/202457673962.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(34) See Asia Aroma annual report 2023, p. 118, available at: http://file.finance.sina.com.cn/211.154.219.97:9494/MRGG/CNSESZ_STOCK/2024/2024-4/2024-04-22/10016936.PDF (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(35) See: http://www.thrive-chemicals.com/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(36) See: https://www.zhhhg.com/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(37) See: http://www.sinopec.com/listco/000/000/042/42065.shtml (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(38) See: http://www.sinochemhx.com/en/14661.html (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(39) See: http://wap.sasac.gov.cn/n2588045/n27271785/n27271792/c14159097/content.html (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(40) See: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/detail/39747711-f959-4eb8-8a59-0f3f776ae8e0 (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(41) See CPCIF Articles of Association, Article 3, available at: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/detail/40288043661e27fb01661e386a3f0001?e=1 (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(42) Ibid.

(43) Ibid., Article 36.

(44) See: https://www.cfaa.cn/lxweb/showSecondryPage.action?subLanmuVo.paramRoot=UTI_FIC_INTRODUCTION&chapter.param.paramCode=UTI_FIC_INTRODUCTION_2 (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(45) See: https://www.cfaa.cn/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(46) See: https://www.cfaa.cn/lxweb/showSecondryPage.action?subLanmuVo.paramRoot=UTI_CATEGORY_7&chapter.id=2286&type= (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(47) See: https://www.cfaa.cn/lxweb/toIndex.action?type=en&param.paramCode=UTI_ENGLISH_2, (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(48) See: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/list/40288043661dc14701661ddbe0980010 (accessed on 10 January 2025).

(49) See: http://www.jx-sptjj.com/html/xhgk/index.html (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(50) See: http://www.jx-sptjj.com/html/hyml/list_10.html (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(51) See Section III.8.3, available at: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(52) See Section VIII.1, available at:https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/29/5665166/files/90c1c79a00b44c67b59c29392476c862.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(53) See Section III.4 and I.1, available at:https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/08/content_5683972.htm#msdynttrid=WRmyf07ph0z74SHmXoOLKjRWl09BdZ4lGdYp9fiI9xU (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(54) See: https://www.zhhhg.com/newsshow.php?newsid=140 (accessed on 15 January 2025).

(55) See: http://cq.gov.cn/ywdt/jrcq/202306/t20230620_12079206.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).

(56) See: https://www.sinochem.com/sinochem/guwm/zlzz/ds/A031002002002Gone1.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).

(57) See: https://www.sinochem.com/sinochem/dzyjj/dj11/A031007001Gone1.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).

(58) See: http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/gsglc/index.shtml (accessed on 10 December 2024).

(59) See: http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/000/000/041/41878.shtml (accessed on 10 December 2024).

(60) Report, Chapter 16.

(61) See Section III.8.3.

(62) See Section IV.1.3, available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/29/content_5665166.htm (accessed on 6 December 2024).

(63) See: https://www.jiaxing.gov.cn/art/2020/12/28/art_1228922755_59069897.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).

(64) See Section III.2.4, available at: https://www.cq.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkml/szfwj/qtgw/ 202108/t20210803_9538603.html (accessed on 13 January 2025).

(65) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 153-157; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 82-84; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 67.

(66) See: http://www.thrive-chemicals.com/content.php?catid=39&id=118 (accessed on 28 April 2025).

(67) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income.

(68) NACE (‘Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne’) is the classification of economic activities in the European Union (EU). The NACE code concerned is C20.1.4: ‘Manufacture of other organic basic chemicals’. For the full list of NACE codes: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.html.

(69) These companies are listed in the First Note (TRON save number t24.008986).

(70) Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2024 – Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co Ltd. and Others v European Commission, T-762/20, ECLI:EU:T:2024:113.

(71) Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/755/oj) as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/749 of 24 February 2017 (OJ L 113, 29.4.2017, p. 11, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/749/oj).

(72) Phenol represents between 25 %-30 % of the cost of manufacturing of the product under investigation.

(73) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, 8.4.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/576/oj).

(74) Global Trade Atlas: https://connect.ihsmarkit.com/,http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/default.cfm.

(75) For five raw materials (glyoxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, guaiacol/guetol, copper sulphate, toluene) the GTA import data for Brazil were not considered appropriate, due to the absence of significant imports and/or inclusion of several product labels within the same GTA product. For these five raw materials, the Commission considered imports from all countries (guaiacol/guetol), exports from Brazil (hydrogen peroxide, toluene, copper sulphate) and exports from France (glyoxylic acid).

(76) https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/statistics/economic/prices-and-costs/17136-national-consumer-price-index.html?edicao=36055&t=downloads.

(77) https://www.gov.br/mme/pt-br/assuntos/secretarias/sntep/publicacoes/boletins-mensais-de-energia/boletins/2023-1/ingles/brazilian-monthly-energy-bulletin-january-2023.pdf/view.

(**) ‘xx’ stands for several codes after the 6-digit code level. For Ortho vanillin and Ethoxysalicylaldehyde the full list of commodity codes is: 2912 49 10 , 2912 49 20 , 2912 49 30 , 2912 49 41 , 2912 49 49 , 2912 49 90 ; For O-Diethoxy benzene the full list of commodity codes is: 2909 30 11 , 2909 30 12 , 2909 30 13 , 2909 30 14 , 2909 30 19 , 2909 30 21 , 2909 30 23 , 2909 30 29 .

(78) During the investigation period, Brazil’s export volumes far exceeded its import volumes for the relevant products. Specifically, Brazil exported over 122 000 tonnes of hydrogen peroxide, compared to just 220 tonnes imported; over 43 000 tonnes of toluene, compared to only 8 tonnes imported; and over 11 000 tonnes of copper sulphate, compared to just 7 tonnes imported. Furthermore, the price analysis revealed a significant disparity, with average import prices being approximately 100 times higher than average export prices (source: GTA).

(79) TRON document: t25.000690 submitted on 13 January 2025.

(80) Procurement resources (https://www.procurementresource.com/) is a platform that provides procurement data and insights to help organisations make informed purchasing decisions. This is a pay-per-use website.

(81) For more information see the Commission website: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/calculation-customs-duties/customs-tariff/eu-customs-tariff-taric_en#:~:text=Legal%20basis,07%2F09%2F1987)..)

(82) Here some examples of auxiliary materials reported by the exporting producers in their COP files: Packing material, Chemical solvent, Acetone, Methyl isobutyl ketone, Phosphoric acid, Freon, Sodium Triphosphate, Tetrasodium, Scale and Corrosion Inhibitor, Calcium Hydroxide, Anhydrous Ammonia, Calcium Chloride, Iron powder.

(83) https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/statistics/technical-documents/statistical-lists-and-classifications/17245-national-classification-of-economic-activities.html?edicao=17248&t=resultados.

(84) https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/statistics/economic/prices-and-costs/17136-national-consumer-pricce-index.html?edicao=36055&t=downloads.

(85) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2247 of 15 November 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electrolytic chromium coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Brazil (OJ L 295, 16.11.2022, p. 7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/2247/oj).

(86) https://www.gov.br/mme/pt-br/assuntos/secretarias/sntep/publicacoes/boletins-mensais-de-energia/boletins/2023-1/ingles/brazilian-monthly-energy-bulletin-january-2023.pdf/view.

(87) Regulation (EU) 2022/576.

(88) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the Russian Federation for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, see in Chapter 10.2.3.

(89) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the Russian Federation for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, SWD(2020) 242 final, 22.10.2020, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2020)242&lang=en, see in Chapter 14.1 (accessed 18 December 2024).

(90) https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/5d903e848db1d1b83e0ec8f744e55570-0350012021/related/CMO-Pink-Sheet-November-2024.pdf. This price is Australian export price FOB Newcastle, Australia.

(91) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/81 of 13 January 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel plated or coated with tin originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/81, 14.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/81/oj).

(92) Benchmark the Fuel Cost of Steam Generation, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip Sheet #15 (Fact Sheet), Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE).

(93) See judgment of 7 March 2024, AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ v European Commission, C-725/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:217, paras. 67 and 72.

(94) Judgment of 14 March 1990, Gestetner Holdings plc v Council and Commission of the European Communities, C-156/87, ECLI:EU:C:1990:116, para. 31.

(95) Judgment of 7 March 2024, AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ v European Commission, C-725/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:217, para. 66.

(96) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘Polyvinyl alcohols’) (OJ L 315, 29.9.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/1336/oj), recital 352.

(97) https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/focus/2022/html/ecb.ebbox202108_01~e8ceebe51f.en.html.

(98) During the investigation period the fixed costs decreased in absolute terms.

(99) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj).