Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1309 of 2 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and the Russian Federation following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 778/2003 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) and Malaysia (‘the original investigation’). Following a first expiry review of the anti-dumping measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3), the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1001/2008 (4) re-imposed the anti-dumping measures. Following a second expiry review of the anti-dumping measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (5), the Commission, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 (6) re-imposed the anti-dumping measures. Following a partial interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as TK Corporation, a Korean exporting producer, was concerned, the Commission amended Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1283/2014 by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/306 (7). Following a third expiry review of the anti-dumping measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/566 (8) of 9 April 2019 re-imposed the anti-dumping measures.

(2) The anti-dumping measures currently in force on the imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in Korea took the form of an ad valorem duty rate, which was set at the level of the dumping margin of 32,4 % for imports from an individually named exporter (TK Corporation), with a residual duty rate of 44,0 % set at the level of the injury margin.

(3) The anti-dumping measures currently in force on the imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in Malaysia took the form of an ad valorem duty rate, which was set at the level of the dumping margin of 49,9 % and 59,2 % for imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 75,0 %.

(4) The Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2013 (9) imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty against imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the Republic of Türkiye’ (‘Türkiye’) and the Russian Federation (‘Russia’). Following a first expiry review, the Commission by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/566 of 9 April 2019 re-imposed anti-dumping duty on imports originating in Russia and terminated the investigation concerning the imports of the same product originating in Türkiye.

(5) The anti-dumping measures currently in force with respect to Russia took the form of an ad valorem residual duty rate set at the level of the dumping margin of 23,8 %.

(6) Anti-dumping measures are currently in force on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’), which have been extended to Taiwan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines (10).

(7) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (11) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(8) The request for review (‘the request’) was submitted on 11 January 2024 by the Defence Committee of the steel butt-welding fittings industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of certain tube and pipe fittings in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

(9) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 9 April 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review regarding imports into the Union of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in Korea, Malaysia and Russia (‘the countries concerned’) based on Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (12) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(10) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(11) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers in the three countries concerned, the authorities of Korea, Malaysia and Russia, known importers, users as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(12) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(13) Following initiation, the government of Russia provided comments on dumping and injury aspects of the review request, as well as the non-compliance with Article 11.3 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement (‘ADA’).

(14) The government of Russia argued that the expiry review lacks justification, as the Union’s import ban on Russian tube and pipe fittings prevents any market re-entry regardless of the anti-dumping measures. The Commission however recalls that the purpose of an expiry review is to assess the likelihood of recurrence or continuation of dumping and injury should the measures lapse, irrespective of temporary geopolitical measures such as sanctions. Indeed, the existence of sanctions does not preclude the legal obligation to conduct a review under the applicable trade defence framework.

(15) Moreover, the government of Russia claimed that the likelihood analysis of recurrence is based on unverifiable private data that are contradicted by publicly available trade statistics showing higher export prices. It should be noted that at the time of preparation of the review request Russia had not published its official customs statistics since the end of 2021. Consequently, Russian export data was no longer available through UN Comtrade or the WTO ITC, and the Russian Customs Administration’s website did not allow access to these statistics. As a result, the applicant had to rely on private market intelligence to obtain export sales information in the review investigation period (‘RIP’).

(16) The government of Russia also indicated that the constructed normal value relied on questionable input costs and on a non-transparent methodology, undermining the credibility of the dumping analysis. The Commission wishes to point out that, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission used undistorted costs of production and reliable third-country data in light of market distortions in Russia and that this methodology is consistent with the established practice.

(17) In addition, the government of Russia claimed, in contrast with the review request’s assertion of a stable future Russian domestic market for tube and pipe fittings, that official data demonstrates substantial expansion possibilities for Russian tube and pipe fittings on the domestic market. The Russian government provided references to certain studies which should prove such expansion possibilities. However, the references did not allow the Commission to trace these documents to its source or to any other public information on this topic. To the contrary, a simple internet search revealed that for example the Russian pipe market faces significant difficulties due to recent developments in the energy sector and market trends (13).

(18) The government of Russia also claimed that the initiation of the expiry review was against WTO rules, and in particular Article 11.1 of the ADA, since the sanctions currently in place against Russia following the military aggression of Russia against Ukraine have effectively halted all imports of Russian tube and pipe fittings into the Union. However, as set out in recital 14 and 81, the current situation cannot be considered of a lasting nature. The existing sanctions cannot therefore have a bearing on the initiation of the investigation, nor on its conclusions.

(19) In view of the above, the Commission rejected the claims on initiation by the government of Russia.

(20) 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

(21) 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 production volume and sales in 2023 of the product under review. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 50 % of the estimated total Union production and sales volumes. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of importers

(22) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.

Sampling of exporting producers in the countries concerned

(23) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known producers in the countries concerned to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the missions of the countries concerned to the European Union to identify and/or contact other producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(24) No exporting producers in the countries concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.

(25) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers and the applicant. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (14) on the day of initiation.

(27) On 6 May 2025, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(28) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate.

(29) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and previous expiry reviews, namely tube or pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes, currently falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11 , ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (TARIC codes 7307 93 11 91, 7307 93 11 93, 7307 93 11 94, 7307 93 11 95, 7307 93 11 99, 7307 93 19 91, 7307 93 19 93, 7307 93 19 94, 7307 93 19 95, 7307 93 19 99, 7307 99 80 92, 7307 99 80 93, 7307 99 80 94, 7307 99 80 95 and 7307 99 80 98) (‘TPF’ or ‘the product under review’).

(30) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and the Russian Federation, and currently falling under CN codes ex 7307 93 11 , ex 7307 93 19 and ex 7307 99 80 (TARIC codes 7307 93 11 91, 7307 93 11 93, 7307 93 11 94, 7307 93 11 95, 7307 93 11 99, 7307 93 19 91, 7307 93 19 93, 7307 93 19 94, 7307 93 19 95, 7307 93 19 99, 7307 99 80 92, 7307 99 80 93, 7307 99 80 94, 7307 99 80 95 and 7307 99 80 98).

(32) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(33) As mentioned in recital 19, none of the producers in Korea, Malaysia and Russia cooperated in the investigation.

(34) The Commission informed the authorities of all countries concerned that, due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to Korea, Malaysia and Russia. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer from the authorities of the three countries in this regard.

(35) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular, publicly available information such as official company websites, information in the request for review, and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicant and the sampled Union producers). The Commission also used various import statistics, including import statistics collected in Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) (15), and the United States of America (‘US’) import database.

(36) No Korean producer cooperated during the investigation. Therefore, the Commission relied on facts available, in line with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. This included information provided by the applicant in their review request, supplemented with available statistical data for the review investigation period, such as GTA and US import statistics.

(37) Exports from Korea to the Union were very low (around 60 tonnes) during the review investigation period and were therefore not considered representative. The analysis focused on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping from Korea based on facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(38) The Commission analysed whether there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the measures lapse. When doing so, the following elements were analysed: Korean export prices to third countries, the production capacity and spare capacity in Korea and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(39) To assess the likely export behaviour of Korean TPF producers in the Union market in the absence of measures, the Commission analysed exports to the US. The US market was selected as the appropriate reference market on the basis that, unlike other Korean export destinations, it is comparable in scale to the Union market, characterized by a strong domestic industry, a substantial volume of imports, and relatively low import tariffs, thereby constituting a highly competitive market. Furthermore, the US represents Korea’s main export destination, accounting for approximately 32 % of its total TPF exports during the review investigation period (16). This methodology aligns with the approach used in the previous expiry review for Korea, as referenced in recital 1.

(40) In the absence of any other available information and in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the normal value was determined based on the data provided by the applicant in the review request. To establish this value for TPF in Korea during the RIP, the applicant relied on price data from a major Korean producer of TPF. The price list, valid as of December 2023, was expressed in KRW on an FCA Busan basis and converted to Euros using the average spot exchange rate published by the European Commission (17).

(41) To ensure representativeness, the applicant classified product types into size categories and applied weighing factors based on their market relevance. Finally, for comparability with export prices, the applicant determined the normal value in Korea, expressed in value per weight.

(42) Export prices during the review investigation period were determined using publicly available data, specifically US customs statistics (18). No adjustments for the level of trade were necessary, as the FOB export price was deemed comparable the normal value determined on an FCA basis.

(43) To express the price difference as a percentage of the import price at CIF level in the third country, the applicant had to assess the costs of insurance and international freight from Korea to its main export markets. This was done based on the OECD database, international transport and insurance costs of merchandise trade (ITIC) (19).

(44) The normal value was then compared with the export price as established above, in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.

(45) The price difference found, expressed as a percentage of the CIF US frontier price, amounted to 21 %.

(46) According to the facts available in the request for review, the Korean TPF industry is highly developed, with at least seven manufacturers, including two major producers —Tae Kwang Bend Co. (TK Bend) and Sung Kwang Bend Co. (SK Bend) — which have a combined production capacity of over 260 000 tonnes. Notably, SK Bend has doubled its capacity since the last expiry review in 2019, while two other producers have ceased operations.

(47) Overall, Korea's total estimated production capacity for TPF has grown from 160 000 tonnes in 2019 to approximately 283 000 tonnes during the RIP. To account for potential overlap in product categories, a conservative estimate of 250 000 tonnes was used.

(48) According to the same source, Korea has a significant spare capacity, with a low utilization rate of 23 %. During the RIP, domestic consumption was estimated at 16 500 tonnes, while total production amounted to 58 200 tonnes, primarily for export. This has resulted in a substantial overcapacity of 191 800 tonnes. This excess capacity is nearly four times the total Union consumption, which was estimated to ca. 48 000 tonnes in the RIP.