Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1330 of 10 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of lysine originating in the People’s Republic of China

Image omitted; see official source	Official Journal of the European Union	EN L series
---	---	---
	2025/1330	11.7.2025

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(4) thereof,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Initiation

• (1) On 23 May 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of lysine 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 8 April 2024 by Metex Noovistago ³ (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of lysine 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.

1.2.   Registration

• (3) The Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2732 ⁴ (‘the registration Regulation’).

1.3.   Provisional measures

• (4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 17 December 2024, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days.

• (5) No comments were received regarding the accuracy of the calculations.

• (6) The Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of lysine originating in the PRC by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/74 ⁵ (‘the provisional Regulation’).

1.4.   Subsequent procedure

• (7) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), a cooperating exporting producer referred to in the provisional Regulation as Qiqihar Longjiang Fufeng Biotechnology Co., Ltd stated that its name should be corrected into Qiqihar Longjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies. In light of the information submitted by the company in the course of the investigation, the Commission accepted the request.

• (8) Following the provisional disclosure, the two sampled exporting producers: Meihua Holdings Group Co. Ltd (‘Meihua’) and Heilongjiang Eppen Biotech Co.,Ltd (‘Eppen’); the complainant, a user: Vall Companys, importers: Andres Pintaluba, Dutch Protein & Services B.V., Barentz Iberia and Kyowa Hakko Europe, the users’ associations European Feed Manufacturer’s Federation, Spanish Feed Manufacturers Confederation (CESFAC) and the importers’ association Danish Grain and Feed Association filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

• (9) Likewise, the China Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (‘CCCMC’), having been empowered by four exporting producers to represent them ⁶, submitted comments within the deadline.

• (10) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions when appropriate.

• (11) 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 lysine originating in the PRC (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

• (12) Following final disclosure, the complainant, Eppen, Meihua, CCCMC, European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC), CESFAC and Danish Grain and Feed Association submitted comments. The comments were addressed in the respective sections below.

1.5.   Claims on initiation

• (13) CCCMC reiterated its concerns regarding a deficient non-confidential summary, claiming that it is an obligation on investigating authorities to ensure that parties to an investigation provide non-confidential summaries in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.

• (14) The Commission reiterated that, as explained in recitals 12 and 13 of the provisional Regulation, the complaint contained sufficient information that was reasonably available to the complainant and that the non-confidential summary of the complaint did contain the relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, as required by Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation. Thus, the Commission does not agree that the rights of defence of the companies represented by CCCMC were breached at the stage of initiation.

1.6.   Sampling

• (15) In the absence of any comments on sampling, the conclusions in recitals 18 to 23 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1.7.   Individual examination

• (16) In the absence of any comments, recital 24 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

1.8.   Questionnaire replies and verification visits

• (17) In the absence of any comments, recitals 24 to 28 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1.9.   Investigation period and period considered

• (18) In the absence of any comments, recital 29 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

• (19) After disclosure, CCCMC reiterated its claim that lysine sulphate should be excluded from the investigation and therefore the product scope should be limited to lysine hydrochloride (HCl) and liquid lysine. It specified that lysine sulphate, lysine HCl and liquid lysine differ in their characteristics, consumer perception and quality. In particular, quoting from a research paper, CCCMC claimed that lysine sulphate is of a lower quality than lysine HCl and that it contains a higher proportion of impurities. Therefore, CCCMC argued that, contrary to the Commission’s conclusions in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, lysine HCl and lysine sulphate are not interchangeable and thus lysine sulphate is not in direct competition with the lysine HCl and lysine liquid produced by the Union industry.

• (20) The Commission noted that the article cited by CCCMC, actually supported the Commission’s position on interchangeability. The article compared the effect of the two categories as feed for shrimp ⁷, proving that similarity in use. The article noted in the introduction section: ‘L-lysine monohydrochloride (L-lysine HCl), which contains a minimum of 78 % lysine […] is a common source of free lysine for addition to poultry and aquaculture diets. One alternative is L-lysine sulphate’. And further in the same section ‘L-lysine sulphate showed equal efficacy as L-lysine HCl in studies with chicken and pigs’. The fact that several research papers evaluated in detail the relevant advantages of the different forms for use in animal feed – and often concluded that they were equivalent – clearly indicated that they are considered as interchangeable by consumers and are in competition with each other for the same market, i.e. animal feed. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the claim.

• (21) Dutch Protein Services B.V., an importer of food grade lysine, claimed that lysine should be distinguished between lysine intended for use in the feed industry and lysine used in the preparation of products for human consumption, and requested that lysine used in the food industry and currently classified under TARIC subheading 2922 41 00 90 should not be subject to the anti-dumping duties. It claimed that food grade lysine does not compete with animal feed grade lysine, as there are differences in the scope of application of food and feed grade lysine, which is also legally defined. The circle of producers of both products is different and there is also a difference in average price level between food and feed grade lysine. The importer claimed that none of the Chinese producers of feed grade lysine holds a relevant licence to also produce food grade lysine. The sales figures in the food sector are significantly lower in terms of volume, with a much higher price level.

• (22) The importer further observed that none of the Chinese producers producing food grade lysine was approached by the Commission and stressed that no food grade lysine is produced in the Union and such production takes place entirely outside the Union. The importer claimed that imports of food grade lysine can therefore not cause material injury to the Union industry, not result in Union sales below production cost or significant losses and not result in a significant loss of sales volumes and market share of the Union industry. The importer also claimed that CN code 2922 41 00 90 is actually used in the food industry and not in the feed industry.

• (23) Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH, an importer of lysine used in pharmaceutical, nutritional and industrial applications, claimed that lysine is produced predominantly for animal feed, while the market for use in pharmaceutical products is a segmented niche market that differs greatly in terms of market participants, volumes and pricing compared to the sales market for animal feed. The sales figures in the pharmaceutical sector are significantly lower in terms of volume, with a much higher price level. Furthermore, it claimed that the market for lysine HCl used for pharmaceutical purposes, contrary to the market for lysine used in feed, is growing. Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH submitted that the market segmentation and the different pricing were not sufficiently considered in the investigation.

• (24) The importer also claimed that there are no indications that the import of lysine for use as an active pharmaceutical ingredient led to the product being placed on the Union market below its normal value and, therefore, there is no injury to the Union industry. Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH requested the Commission to exclude lysine used in the pharmaceutical sector from the product scope or, alternatively, to apply end-use regime according to Article 254 UCC within the framework of the special procedures.

• (25) The claims of Dutch Protein Services B.V. and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH are addressed together in the following recitals.

• (26) The Commission announced in the Notice of Initiation ⁸ that the product under investigation is lysine and its esters, salts thereof, regardless of the application. As summarised in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, during the investigation the Commission analysed the application of lysine in a wide range of applications such as feed market, pharmaceutical and food, and concluded that the form of lysine and the content of lysine in the product, do not alter its basic definition, its characteristics, or the perception that various parties have of it. The different forms of lysine have the same function, i.e. to provide highly digestible lysine to animals and human beings, either in pharmaceutical products, in food (as a dietary supplement), or feed. The form of lysine is therefore irrelevant, and all three forms are interchangeable as they are the same nutrient.

• (27) In view of the above claims, the Commission analysed the application of lysine in a wide range of applications such as feed market, pharmaceutical and food (dietary supplement), and concluded that the form of lysine and the content of lysine in the product, do not alter its basic definition, its characteristics, or the perception that various parties have of it. Even though the requirements on purity of pharmaceutical and food lysine are higher, the different forms of lysine have the same function, i.e. to provide highly digestible lysine to animals and human beings, either in pharmaceutical products, in food (as a dietary supplement), or feed. In this lysine is no different from any other product manufactured and marketed in various product types. The Commission further clarified that the Union industry produced and sold lysine to the pharmaceutical and food sector in the investigation period. Although the Union industry supplied mainly the animal feed market, it proved to be able to supply also the pharmaceutical and food markets with higher demands on purity of lysine.

• (28) Concerning the claim on CN code, the Commission clarified that the CN code 2922 41 00 was published in the Notice of Initiation and was part of the scope of the investigation since the beginning. The CN code belongs to the category of Organic chemicals and is subdivided into:

• — TARIC 2922 41 00 20 at the time of the initiation (currently falling under 2922 41 00 30): L-Lysine hydrochloride (CAS RN 657-27-2) or an aqueous solution of L-lysine (CAS RN 56-87-1), containing by weight 50 % or more of L-lysine,

• — TARIC 2922 41 00 90: Other.

• (29) The Commission noted that both lysine HCl and liquid lysine, for any type of use, are imported under these TARIC codes. Therefore, lysine salts, lysine acetate and lysine aspartate, intended for pharmaceutical use, are falling under CN code 2922 41 00 , and they are subject to the current investigation.

• (30) The Commission rejected the allegation that it had not reached out to Chinese producers of food grade lysine. Indeed, the Commission recalled that, as specified in recital 21 of the provisional Regulation, it had contacted all known producers of lysine, regardless of the grade or use, in the PRC and that had requested the assistance of the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union to check and, if needed, complement the list it used. It had subsequently sampled the largest exporting producers that had come forward, as set out in recitals 21 to 23 of the provisional Regulation. Moreover, as noted in recital 23 of the provisional Regulations, the only reservations expressed by the interested parties with regards to the sample of the exporting producers was the number of sampled companies, not the type of lysine the sampled companies sell on the Union market.

• (31) With regard to the claim for end use exemption, the Commission noted that in addition to the elements detailed under recital 37 of the provisional Regulation, Meihua Holdings Group Co.,Ltd, one of the sampled Chinese exporting producers, had agreed to acquire the amino acid business of Kyowa Hakko Bio Co., Ltd ⁹. The Commission also noted that the deal is subject to regulatory approval and is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2025. As Kyowa Hakko Bio Co., Ltd is currently in the process of becoming a related company to Meihua Holdings Group Co.,Ltd, the Commission considers that the conditions to fulfil end use exemption laid down in Article 254 of the Union Customs Code ¹⁰ are not met.

• (32) Based on the above considerations, recitals 30 to 38 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3. DUMPING

• (33) Following provisional disclosure, the sampled exporting producers Meihua and Eppen, CCCMC and the complainant commented on the provisional dumping findings.

3.1.   Normal value

• (34) The details of the calculation of the normal value were set out in recitals 39 to 228 of the provisional Regulation.

3.1.1.   Existence of significant distortions

• (35) No comments were received concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC. Therefore, the findings in recitals 52 to 151 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.1.2.   Representative country

• (36) No comments were received as to the finding that Colombia met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation in order to be considered as an appropriate representative country. The conclusions in recitals 152 to 174 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.1.3.   Sources used to establish costs and benchmarks

• (37) Following disclosure, the two sampled exporting producers submitted individual responses on the sources used to establish costs and benchmarks.

• (38) Eppen commented on the calculation used by the Commission to calculate benchmarks for by-products. They objected to the use of the pro rata calculation used by the Commission and requested that the Commission uses instead GTA prices. In the Annex II to the second FOP note the Commission had notified that for by-products they were aiming to use either GTA or other alternative sources. In recitals 187 and 188 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission explained that the by-products reported by the producers show great diversity in quality, which is then reflected in their diversity in pricing, but in all cases the main price driver remains corn. While analysing the submissions by the producers, the Commission had also noted that all HS codes declared for by-products are characterised by great diversity, as they are so called ‘basket codes’, covering a great variety of very diverse products, that do not match the by-products declared. Taking the diversity in price for the by-product itself and the variety of products covered by the codes, the Commission concluded that the GTA data for these codes is not reliable for the determination of benchmarks. In the absence of other data available in the GTA or from another source, the Commission concluded that the best approximation of the price for these by-products is to adhere to a practice already used in an anti-dumping proceeding of a product in the same category as lysine ¹¹ and use a pro rata calculation. As the producer has not provided any additional information that would lead to a more reliable estimation of the benchmark, their comments were dismissed.

• (39) In recitals 176, 178 and 196 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission explained that the benchmark for steam used in the production of lysine was calculated on the bases of the cost of natural gas. Eppen alleged that they purchase steam from a related company which uses coal as fuel and requested that the calculation of the price is adjusted on the basis of steam coal.

• (40) In this regard it is noted that the related company had not been part of the information submitted by the Eppen group in their questionnaire replies to allow verification during the on-spot visit. No further information on the production procedure of steam or evidence substantiating this allegation was submitted. Moreover, in other cases in the same general category of products (e.g. erythritol) the Commission has used the natural gas to steam conversion. In the absence of evidence, the Commission dismissed the claim.

• (41) Meihua submitted evidence and referred to verification exhibits showing that the coal used by Meihua Jilin and Meihua Xingjiang are lignite (HS code 2702 10 ) and sub-bituminous coal (HS code 2701 19 ), respectively. Meihua requested that the Commission adapts the benchmark for coal to reflect the coal used. They proposed to either use the GTA prices for lignite and sub-bituminous coal, or alternatively to use Colombian prices for steam coal.

• (42) To establish a benchmark for coal, the Commission used the weighted average of unit prices of imports to all countries originating in all countries excluding the PRC and countries listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council ¹², as reported in the GTA (recitals 178 and 185 of the provisional Regulation). The benchmark was set on the basis of the price of anthracite (HS code 2701 11 ), as this was the code declared by the exporting producer in its questionnaire response. Yet, in light of the evidence submitted, the Commission accepted the claim, as the use of GTA prices for lignite and sub-bituminous coal more accurately account for the types of coal employed by the Meihua group. The Commission updated the coal benchmark for Jilin Meihua using GTA data for lignite to 0,502 CNY per kg and that of Xingjiang Meihua with GTA data for to subbituminous coal to 0,969 CNY per kg.

• (43) The determination of the coal benchmark in the provisional regulation had not taken into consideration transport costs as no transport costs had been declared by Meihua in their questionnaire reply. While analysing the additional data submitted by Meihua on coal purchases mentioned in recital 41 above, the Commission noted that the transactions included transport costs which had not been declared in the producers’ questionnaires, as required by the Commission.

• (44) On the basis of the new submissions, the Commission determined that transport costs accounted for 11,4 % of the lignite purchase costs for Jilin Meihua and 44,6 % of the sub-bituminous coal purchase costs for Xingjiang Meihua. To calculate the total cost, the Commission applied these percentages as a markup to the coal benchmark prices derived from GTA as explained in recital 42. This resulted in a final price of 0,560 CNY per kg for the lignite used by Jilin and 1,402 CNY per kg for the subbituminous coal used by Xingjiang Meihua, inclusive of purchase costs.

• (45) In their submission, Meihua requested a review of the calculations regarding the benchmark for labour cost. They noted that the benchmark was based on ILO data for the monthly earnings for ‘Broad sector: Industry’ in Colombia in 2023, whereas the weekly hours worked reflected ‘other manufacturing’ activities in Colombia in 2023. The Commission accepted that there is a clerical error and further analysed the data available in the ILO database. The Commission identified in the same source (LFS – Integrated Household Survey) a benchmark for average hourly earnings of employees in chemical industries in Colombia in the investigation period. This benchmark reflects the sector of lysine production better than the more generic industry earnings. Thus, the Commission decided to use this benchmark, which amounts to 19,8 CNY/hour after including the contributions, such as social security mentioned in recital 189 of the provisional Regulation.

• (46) Following final disclosure, Meihua submitted that the Commission’s practice is to establish benchmarks of raw materials by reference to import statistics. The benchmarks are prices at CIF level, which already include transport cost. Thus, the Commission erred in adding the mark-up for transport costs when establishing the benchmarks for lignite and subbituminous coal (recital 44).

• (47) The Commission agreed that the international benchmarks of 0,502 CNY per kg for lignite and 0,969 CNY per kg for subbituminous coal are at CIF price level and include transport costs to the border. However, it is the Commission’s consistent practice to include transport costs from the border to the factory gate when calculating the normal value. The calculation of the normal value includes an increase of the value of the international benchmark by the ratio of transport costs to material costs, as reported by the exporting producers. Only by adding these costs the value of the input materials, as delivered to the factory gate of a producer in the representative country, is properly reflected. To this end, the Commission applied the ratios as derived from the questionnaire responses of Meihua. As the Commission followed the established methodology, Meihua’s request to remove the transport mark-up is dismissed and the calculations disclosed to Meihua and the resulting dumping margins remained unchanged.

• (48) Eurolysine also made comments on the calculation of the coal benchmarks. They objected to the change of the benchmark to lignite and subbituminous coal, stating that the Commission should not have amended the original benchmark which was based on anthracite, because Meihua requested the change of coal benchmarks only after provisional disclosure. The Commission noted that it always seeks to draw its conclusions on correct facts and on the best data available. As cited in recital 41, the Commission was in a position to base its conclusions on data already submitted and verified during the on-spot verification visit to the Meihua factory (see recital 28 of the provisional Regulation), and thus could accept Meihua’s submission regarding the types of coal employed by the companies of the group. Thus, the comment was dismissed.

• (49) Eurolysine further objected to the use of the international benchmarks for coal citing that this approach deviates from that applied in the provisional Regulation. They also commented that the Commission has not included imports into China in the calculation of the benchmarks. Both comments are factually incorrect. The Commission had used an international benchmark for anthracite as seen in recital 185 of the provisional regulation. The Commission included imports into China as can be seen in the open version of the coal benchmark calculations provided in the context of the final disclosure ¹³. Therefore, the comments were dismissed.

• (50) Eurolysine also commented that there is a clerical error in the factoring in of the transport costs that is described in recital 44 proposing an alternate calculation method for the transport mark-up. As explained in recital 47, the mark-up calculation was strictly adhering to the Commission’s methodology. Therefore, the comment was dismissed.

• (51) Following final disclosure, Eppen repeated their request for the benchmark for steam to be calculated on the basis of lignite rather than gas, as set out in recital 195 of the provisional Regulation. They claimed that the steam was purchased from a related company ‘Eppen Energy’ that was reported to the Commission and which should have been part of the verification visit. They present to the Commission print screens of the related company’s accounting system, showing lignite as the material of steam production. The Commission notes that no data on the use of coal was presented during the verification visit. Following the second FOP Note, Eppen had several opportunities to present information on the use of coal – and on the specific quality of coal – to produce steam. No data was presented prior to the definitive stage and the data submitted at final disclosure cannot be verified. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the claim.

• (52) In the absence of other comments, further to the updated benchmark for labour referred to in recital 38 above and the changes to the coal benchmark summarised in recital 42 above, the findings regarding the normal value as set out in recitals 39 to 208 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed. For clarity purposes, the following rows replace rows ‘Labour’ and ‘Coal’ of Table 1 of the provisional Regulation:

‘Table 1

Factors of production of lysine

Factor of Production	Commodity Code	Source of data	Value (CNY)	Unit of measurement
Labour	Labour	Labour	Labour	Labour
Labour	[N/A]	ILO	19,8	Labour hour
Energy	Energy	Energy	Energy	Energy
Subbituminous coal	2701 19	GTA	0,969	Kg
Lignite	2702 10	GTA	0,502	Kg’

3.2.   Export price

• (53) In the absence of comments concerning the calculation of export price, recitals 209 to 212 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.3.   Comparison

• (54) As explained in recital 218 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments were made to the export price where products were sold from the producer company towards other companies in the same group and then exported to the Union, pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic regulation for the mark-up received by the related trader, whenever the traders were considered to perform functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. Meihua requested the Commission to exclude the SG & A and profit contribution of related trading companies from the calculation of the export claiming that they do not perform the function of an agent. They claimed that all of the Meihua Group’s companies (both production and trading entities) are subject to a single economic control, operate together as a single undertaking with a division of functions for the purposes of producing and trading the product under investigation, and their relations are not organised on the basis of commercial relations similar to those of an agency or otherwise subject to a commission basis.

• (55) The Commission noted that the questionnaire replies submitted by Meihua, and in particular the ‘Physical and Financial Flowchart of Export Sales’, characterise the trading companies as ‘traders’ and evince the existence of negotiations between the producing companies and the traders.

• (56) The fact that trading companies act as agents working on a commission basis is further corroborated by the existence of sales contracts between the two traders and the factories. More importantly, the purchase contract between Meihua HQ and Jilin Meihua contains clauses that are, respectively, a liability clause and a clause regarding the resolution of disputes amicably or if that fails, in front of a court. The existence of this evidence precludes the characterisation of Meihua companies based in the People’s Republic of China as a single economic entity. As noted by the case-law, the presence of an arbitration clause intended to resolve contractual disputes liable to arise between the two contracting companies and the lack of solidarity between those companies presuppose not only the existence of two distinct legal persons, but also two economic entities with divergent interests, and does not appear to be reconcilable with the existence of a single economic entity and with the classification of one of those companies as an internal sales department ¹⁴. This applies even more in the case of Meihua HK, a subsidiary based in Hong Kong, a customs territory separate from China, that has ‘trading’ as its sole activity as submitted by Meihua, and that negotiates terms with the factories and signs relevant contracts. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the claim of Meihua and confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 218 of the provisional Regulation.

• (57) Following final disclosure, Meihua repeated its claims regarding the single economic entity status of the Meihua companies, but submitted no new information in this regard. Therefore, their claim was rejected.

• (58) Eppen also commented following final disclosure, regarding the status of Eppen Asia. Eppen requested that Eppen Asia is not considered a separate entity, and that no deductions for profit and SG & A are made to arrive at the ex works export price. Eppen claimed that Eppen Asia is a shell company with no substantive operation, and not acting as an agent working on a commission basis.

• (59) The Commission noted, however, that Eppen stated in their submission following final disclosure that the price of sales from Heilongjiang Eppen to Eppen Asia was determined by deducting a small margin of the final price of the final price from the independent costumers, which is the very nature of a commission. Furthermore, one of the contracts submitted by Eppen and quoted in their comments to the final disclosure, includes liability and arbitration clauses regarding the resolution of disputes amicably or if that fails, in front of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission in accordance with the provisions of the said Commission. The existence of this evidence precludes the characterisation of Eppen Asia as a part of a single economic entity. As noted also in recital 56, according to case-law, the presence of an arbitration clause intended to resolve contractual disputes liable to arise between the two contracting companies and the lack of solidarity between those companies presuppose not only the existence of two distinct legal persons, but also two economic entities with divergent interests. Thus, it does not appear to be reconcilable with the existence of a single economic entity and with the classification of one of those companies as an internal sales department. This applies even more in the case of Eppen Asia, a subsidiary based in Singapore, a separate country. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the claim of Eppen and confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 218 of the provisional Regulation.

• (60) Finally, Eppen claimed that the list of employees proves that Eppen Asia does not have sales functions as there is no personnel with sales functions in their titles. In this regard, the Commission notes that employment contracts submitted by Eppen clearly state that ‘the Company shall have the right to direct the employee to perform services for any of the related services not mentioned in this job’. On the basis of the above, the claim for single economic entity is dismissed.

• (61) Both Meihua and Eppen commented on the Commission’s methodology when calculating the SG & A costs contribution in the construction of the normal value and consequently the comparison of the normal value with the export price at ex-works level. These comments are a continuation of comments addressed in recitals 219 to 222 of the provisional Regulation.

• (62) In their submission following provisional measures, Eppen noted that the SG & A costs of the Colombian company Sucroal used by the Commission to construct the normal value contains three elements: Distribution costs, administration costs and ‘other costs’. Eppen claims that the ‘distribution costs’ correspond to cost elements that are direct expenses incurred beyond the ex-works level. As such, they should not be included in the calculation of the constructed normal value of the company under investigation. The Commission notes that Eppen provided no evidence regarding the breakdown of the distribution costs, to support the claim. Thus, this claim was dismissed.

• (63) Similarly, Meihua claimed that the Commission has incorrectly included distribution costs in the constructed SG & A costs ratio, while it has simultaneously deducted such costs from the calculation of the Meihua Group’s export price. Meihua’s claim relies solely on the assumption that the breakdown of SG & A of Sucroal relating to ‘distribution costs’ mirrors expenses such as handling and loading, freight, and other ancillary expenses that were deducted from the export price to bring it to ex-works level. However, this assumption is not supported by any evidence on file.

• (64) Regarding both claims, the Commission notes that the ‘distribution costs’ reported by Sucroal are part of the SG & A costs. This is shown by the fact that ‘other costs’ reported in the Orbis database, are disaggregated into ‘distribution costs’, ‘administration costs’ and ‘other costs’ in the data provided by the Colombian authorities. The data available do not make a further distinction within the distribution costs that would allow to identify and exclude specific categories of costs. As such, distribution costs are selling costs, that may include transport costs, but also other categories of costs, such as leasing of storage and distribution facilities, including the necessary machinery and vehicles, or advertising and market research, which were not deducted from the export price.

• (65) Meihua further claimed that the burden of proof falls with the Commission as it has to prove that it used an ‘undistorted and reasonable’ amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profit, as required by Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. These claims had been addressed in recital 220 of the provisional Regulation. In the latest submission, Meihua further claimed that the Commission should accept that it bears the burden of proof by referring to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/58 ¹⁵ imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres originating in the PRC.

• (66) The Commission noted that in recital 267 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/58, the Commission only addressed the question of the suitability of the SG & A costs in a general manner, stating that ‘SG & A and profit did not appear disproportionately high and thus were deemed as appropriate’. Regarding detailed information on SG & A costs, the Commission notes that in the case of pneumatic tyres, as set out in recitals 270 and 271 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/58, the Commission indeed subtracted transportation costs from the calculation of the SG & A costs to bring it to ex-works level, based on information available in the company’s financial statements. However, in the case of Sucroal, no such detailed information was readily available, nor made available by the exporting producers (Eppen and Meihua) to allow the Commission to subtract transportation costs.

• (67) Following final disclosure, both Meihua and Eppen repeated their claims regarding the Commission’s methodology when calculating the SG & A costs contribution in the construction of the normal value, but submitted no new information. Therefore, their claims were dismissed.

• (68) In the absence of any additional information that would allow the exclusion of particular costs from the SG & A costs calculation, the Commission considered that the level of SG & A costs of Sucroal is undistorted and reasonable for the ex-works level of trade and rejected the claims received. In the absence of other comments regarding ‘Comparison’ recitals 213 to 222 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.4.   Dumping margins

• (69) As described in recital 52 above, following claims from interested parties and in the absence of any further comments, the Commission recalculated the dumping margins.

• (70) The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Definitive dumping margin (%)
Meihua Group: — Jilin Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd — Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd	47,7
Heilongjiang Eppen Biotech Co., Ltd	58,2
Other cooperating companies	53,1
All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China	58,2

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry and Union production

• (71) In the absence of comments on the determination of the Union industry and Union production, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 229 to 231 of the provisional Regulation.

4.2.   Union consumption

• (72) The revision of the Chinese import data for lysine in the investigation period, as explained in recitals 79 to 82 and shown in the revised Table 3, had an impact on Table 2 of the provisional Regulation. The definitive Table 2 is as follows:

‘Table 2

Union consumption (tonnes in HCl equivalent)

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Total Union consumption	[465 000 – 510 000 ]	[470 000 – 515 000 ]	[450 000 – 495 000 ]	[410 000 – 450 000 ]
Index	100	102	97	86
Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence() (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence() (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence() (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence() (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence() (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).

• (73) During the period considered, the Union consumption decreased by 14 percentage points.

• (74) In the absence of comments on Union consumption, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 234 to 236 of the provisional Regulation.

4.3.   Imports from the country concerned

• (75) In recitals 237 and 238 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission explained that, in order to not unduly include other products, the import data of lysine sulphate it used were from specialised market intelligence providers of Chinese and Indonesian trade statistics. The exact source could not be disclosed at the request of the data provider, but the Commission had been able to cross-check these data.

• (76) After disclosure, CESFAC and Vall Companys argued that the Commission’s decision to not disclose the source of import data for lysine sulphate meant that interested parties must take them at face value. In addition, they claimed that the Commission and Eurolysine had not outlined the methodology used by the providers or the adjustments that were subsequently made to the export or import data to allow the identification of lysine sulphate imports in view of their classification in ‘basket’ CN codes.

• (77) CESFAC and Vall Companys submitted revised figures for imported lysine from China, using Eurostat data for imports of lysine HCl and lysine sulphate import data which they had obtained from Kemiex, a market intelligence provider which follows essential raw material supply chains. The combined data of Eurostat and Kemiex showed a volume of Chinese imports of 296 869 tonnes in the investigation period, which is 11 % lower than the 329 052 tonnes published by the Commission in Table 3 of the provisional Regulation. CESFAC and Vall Companys Group noted that, in their revised calculation, Chinese imports of lysine had remained relatively stable throughout the period concerned, declining from 2020 to 2022 and recovering from 2022 to 2023. Overall, Chinese imports had only increased by 6 % from 2020 to the investigation period in comparison to the 8 % reported by the Commission and they had increased by 9 % rather than 15 % from 2022 to 2023.

• (78) In the same vein, CCCMC claimed that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that there has been a significant increase in dumped imports from China, in either absolute terms, or relative to consumption or production, stating that an import volume increase by 8 % is not significant. It submitted official China export statistics for lysine HCl showing an overall decrease of exported volumes in the period considered of 14 % between 2021 and 2022, and of additional decrease of 16 % between 2022 and 2023 (investigation period). CCCMC submitted Eurostat import data for lysine sulphate (CN 2309 90 31 , and 2309 90 96 ) for the period considered to demonstrate a decrease in the imported volumes to the Union, claiming that the Commission failed to assess properly the import volumes of lysine and the entirety of trends observed during the investigation period.

• (79) In the provisional Regulation, the Commission applied import data for lysine sulphate from a specialised market intelligence for the entire period considered to ensure consistency for lysine sulphate, even though a separate CN code for lysine sulphate was created in 2023. In view of CESFAC’s argument of imported volume of lysine sulphate from China for the investigation period, the Commission re-assessed the situation. Given the availability of a separate CN code for lysine sulphate as from 2023, it concluded that it was more appropriate to use, for that year, the import data from Eurostat for that product type, as those data are the most reliable. For the preceding years, as lysine sulphate was imported under basket codes and Eurostat data was not available strictly for lysine sulphate, and the Kemiex data submitted by CESFAC was understated in comparison to the Eurostat import statistics for lysine sulphate in the investigation period, the Commission considered that the import data from the specialised market intelligence it had used at the provisional stage continued to be the most reliable source.

• (80) The Commission noted, moreover, that there were clear indications that the Kemiex data used by CESFAC contained serious flaws, because, as also noted by the complainant, CESFAC admitted that for the investigation period (2023) the estimated volume of lysine sulphate exports from China, i.e. 31 205 tonnes, was lower than the applicable quota, which was confirmed by the Commission to be exhausted on 6 October 2023. The Commission recalled that CESFAC had used a specialised market intelligence for essential raw material supply chains, rather than an import/export database.

• (81) The data provided by CESFAC were 5 % lower than the Eurostat import data for the investigation period, which confirmed that the import volumes according to Kempiex are understated.

• (82) In view of the updated import statistics, as described in recital 79 above, Table 3 of the provisional Regulation is revised as follows:

‘Table 3

Import volume and market share

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Volume of imports from China (tonnes)	304 015	294 812	285 083	313 449
Index	100	97	94	103
Market share (%)	[60 –69 ]	[49 –63 ]	[59 –69 ]	[70 –79 ]
Index	100	96	96	120
Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’

• (83) The Commission established that during the period considered, the imports from China increased by 3 %, whilst the market share of those imports increased from [60 %-69 %] in 2020 to [70 %-79 %] in the investigation period. The Chinese imports maintained a dominant share on the Union market throughout the period considered and the overall increase in imported volumes occurred at time when the Union consumption of lysine decreased by 14 %, resulting in a market share increase by 20 %. On that basis, the Commission rejects the claim that there has not been a significant increase of dumped imports from China.

• (84) With regard to the claim on non-transparent treatment of the source of import data for lysine sulphate between 2020-2022, the Commission explained in recitals 98 to 101 below why it considered it justified not to disclose the specialised market intelligence.

• (85) The complainant stated that the objective of the submission of the EU lysine industry dated 7 November 2024 concerning lysine sulphate was to provide more accurate data. This submission was done in a fully transparent manner, with the possibility for all interested parties to access and check the data, including the breakdown between the different types of lysine. Given that the number of specialised market intelligence providers is limited, the complainant has not disclosed the source.

• (86) CCCMC claimed that the Commission had not diligently assessed the conversion rates between lysine HCl, liquid lysine and lysine sulphate, arguing that the Commission had not provided evidence to support correctness of the conversions. CCCMC noted that lysine sulphate is also available in liquid form. The liquid forms contain 25 % lysine and the solid forms about 50 %. As a result, CCCMC argued that import figures presented by the Commission are incorrect and inflated and they do not shed light on how the Commission applied conversion rates to imports under CN code 2922 41 00 , which covers both lysine HCl and liquid lysine.

• (87) CCCMC also claimed that the Commission failed to provide reasoned and adequate explanations concerning the evidence that lysine sulphate is produced only in China and Indonesia and failed to conduct a segmented injury analysis by distinguishing between lysine HCl, liquid lysine and lysine sulphate.

• (88) The Commission gathered evidence at the level of sampled Chinese exporting producers that the Chinese companies export only lysine HCl (78 % content of lysine in the product) and lysine sulphate (55 % content of lysine in the product), i.e. with the lysine content used in the conversion rates to convert lysine sulphate to lysine HCl equivalent. The Commission reiterated that these rates are explained in recital 234 of the provisional Regulation. The Commission noted that they are based on the publicly available and well-known chemical composition and molecular masses of the products and have been verified during the visits to the Chinese exporting producers. Furthermore, the disclosed contents of lysine are used by the users and have not been disputed by importers nor users. The only known exporters of lysine sulphate during the period considered were Chinese and Indonesian exporting producers. No evidence against this assertion was brought up by any of the interested parties. With regard to the segmented injury analysis, the Commission concluded in recital 37 of the provisional Regulation that the lysine form is irrelevant as all three forms (HCl, liquid and sulphate) are interchangeable because they are the same nutrient with the same function. The Commission also concluded in recital 27 above that the intended use of lysine, the form of lysine and the content of lysine in the product do not alter its basic definition, its characteristics, or the perception that various parties have of it. Therefore, it was not necessary to carry a segmented injury analysis. The Commission rejected the claim.

• (89) Following final disclosure, CCCMC submitted that the Commission granted excessive confidentiality to lysine sulphate import data and the source of the data. Firstly, CCCMC alleged that the Commission did not disclose separate data for imports of lysine sulphate from China, only consolidated imports already converted into lysine HCl.

• (90) The Commission explained in the provisional Regulation (recital 37) that all forms of lysine are interchangeable as they are the same nutrient, and have similar essential physical, technical and chemical characteristics. While the Commission published consolidated imports converted into lysine HCl, the Commission also explained in the provisional Regulation that only lysine HCl and lysine sulphate is imported from China. The imports of lysine HCl were extracted from Eurostat. It is therefore possible to calculate the HCl converted volumes of imports of lysine sulphate by applying the conversion factor of 0,705 tonne of lysine sulphate to HCl equivalent described in recital 234 of provisional Regulation. This claim is rejected.

• (91) Secondly, CCCMC alleged that the Commission did not demonstrate that the disclosure of the source of import data of lysine sulphate and the import data itself would allegedly be ‘of significant competitive advantage to a competitor’ or have ‘a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information’, claiming Chinese exporters should have access to this information, as it relates to their imports.

• (92) The Commission explained in recital 238 of the provisional Regulation that the source of the data concerning the Chinese imports could not be disclosed at the request of the data provider. The Commission further explained in recital 99 below why it considered sufficient to disclose the data for imports of lysine sulphate from China without disclosing the origin of those data. The Commission maintained that the import data of lysine sulphate were disclosed (recital 82 above) and that the disclosure of the source of those data would be against the conditions of the source data provider.

• (93) Thirdly, following the final disclosure, CCCMC reiterated that the Commission failed to conduct a segmented injury analysis distinguishing between lysine HCl, liquid lysine and lysine sulphate, claiming the lysine forms are not interchangeable and that the Commission had the data necessary to conduct such an analysis.

• (94) The Commission maintained its position set out in recital 88 above, and further explained that vast majority of lysine is used in animal feed, for which the interchangeability of lysine forms was confirmed by the lysine users. The scientific article quoted by CCCMC in recital 20 above demonstrated that the forms of lysine are in direct competition. The Commission maintained its position that the provisional Regulation contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence.

• (95) CCCMC further alleged that the Commission did not address comments on the evaluation of impact of Chinese imports on the situation of the Union industry concerning decreased Union consumption, and trends in production volumes of Union industry in conjunction with Chinese imports to the Union. In particular, CCCMC claimed that the Union industry’s production suffered from the greatest drop between 2021 and 2022, i.e., when the Chinese imports of lysine also decreased and were therefore not the explanatory force of the decreasing trend.

• (96) The Commission maintained that the comments submitted by CCCMC were addressed in sufficient detail in recitals 79, 83, 88 above and recitals 103, 105, 106 and 107 below. In summary, contrary to the claims of CCCMC, it is clear from Table 2 that the Union consumption decreased by 14 percentage points in the investigation period, while the Union production decreased by 83 percentage points (Table 5). In the same period, the Chinese imports maintained dominant market share in the Union (Table 3), and even though the imported volumes decreased by 3 percentage points in 2022, the decrease was lower that the decrease in Union consumption (– 5 percentage points). Furthermore, the Commission had addressed the comment on spiralling effect in the investigation period in recital 284 of the provisional Regulation. The argument was rejected.

4.3.1.   Prices of the imports from the country concerned and price undercutting

• (97) CCCMC submitted that, according to Eurostat for CN code 2922 41 00 , 2309 90 96 (basket code) and 2309 90 31 (basket code), the decrease of Chinese import prices between 2022 and 2023 are much higher compared to the prices provided by the Commission in the provisional Regulation (Eurostat data for CN code 2922 41 00 and Eurolysine’s data for lysine sulphate) and that the grant of confidentiality of import data strongly impinges upon its rights of defence.

• (98) With regards to the import statistics, the Commission clarified that while Eurostat is a publicly available database on import statistics for eight-digit CN codes, regarding lysine sulphate the Commission could not use the import statistics of current TARIC codes 2309 90 31 51, 2309 90 31 59, 2309 90 96 51, 2309 90 96 59, as those TARIC codes were ‘basket codes’ including products other than the product concerned between 2020 and 2022. Moreover, in the provisional Regulation, the Commission explained in recitals 237 and 238 that lysine HCl (China) import data was extracted from Eurostat, and import data on lysine sulphate was cross-checked from a specialised market intelligence to gain more accurate view of lysine sulphate imports. Concretely, the Commission extracted import statistics of lysine sulphate (basket codes) from Eurostat and Surveillance for the period considered and noted that the import volumes were between 662 896 tonnes in 2020 and 537 126 tonnes in 2023, i.e. significantly above the duty-free tariff quota. Given that the duty-free quota of lysine sulphate was exhausted every year of the period considered in the Autumn months, the Commission considered the Eurostat statistics as not accurate. The Commission analysed export data from China on lysine sulphate extracted from a specialised market intelligence and noted that those data show more accurate view of lysine sulphate imports in the Union.

• (99) Furthermore, the Commission noted that in the Case T-326/21 ¹⁷, the General Court concluded in paragraph 52 and 53 that ‘certain allegations in the submission appear to criticise the Commission for not communicating to the applicants the origin of the data used. However, the applicants do not explain how disclosure of the origin of the data was necessary in order to defend their interests, since the data themselves had been communicated to them and the Commission had responded to their objections. In the light of the foregoing, it is in no way apparent that the Commission failed to communicate to the applicants the information necessary in order to enable them effectively to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the evidence relied on by it’. Considering this case-law, the Commission therefore considered it sufficient to disclose the data for imports of lysine sulphate from China without disclosing the origin of those data. The CCCMC’s claim was therefore rejected.

• (100) Furthermore, the Commission recalled that the CN codes 2309 90 96 and 2309 90 31 , used by CCCMC to demonstrate average price decrease of lysine sulphate between 2022 and 2023, were ‘basket codes’ containing other imported products until 2023. Therefore, any demonstration of price development on these CN codes by CCCMC is unsubstantiated and incorrect, as the prices used were an average of prices of lysine and other products. The Commission further explained the imported volumes of lysine from China in Section 4.3.1 and 5.1 of this Regulation.

• (101) The Commission therefore considered that the complaint and the provisional Regulation contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding. It is recalled that Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6(5) of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade allow for the safeguarding of confidential information in circumstances where disclosure would be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person has acquired the information. The information provided under confidential cover falls under these categories. In any event, the complainant has provided summaries of the contents of the confidential segments of the complaint. It had also explained in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation that in view of the fact that Union industry consists of a single producer it was understandable that injury factors were given in ranges and in indexed form in the complaint. Thus, the Commission rejected that the rights of defence of the companies represented by CCCMC were breached in the investigation.

• (102) CCCMC further argued that the Commission did not present data to show the undercutting trend, a pricing conduct that continues throughout the period considered. CCCMC further claimed that the Commission did not provide evidence of how Chinese and Union imports interacted over the period considered, submitting that the Commission’s finding of existence of price undercutting is inconsistent with the obligation to conduct an objective examination. In view of this claim, the complainant submitted that the Union industry had demonstrated in the complaint that the undercutting has not been static, as it started long before the investigation period and continuously increased.

• (103) The Commission noted that an objective price undercutting analysis should be based on a comparison of prices between like product types. It is therefore the Commission’s consistent practice to make this analysis on the basis of the detailed sales data of sampled exporting producers and the Union industry in the investigation period, as those data allow for a type-by-type comparison. No such analysis can be made for the preceding years, absent of such detailed data. The claim was rejected.

• (104) CCCMC further claimed that Eurostat data show substantially higher prices of Chinese imports than the data provided by the Commission in Table 4 of the provisional Regulation, and that the Commission has not provided sufficient evidence as to the price undercutting, price depression and price suppression of the Chinese imports to the Union industry. It highlighted that Chinese import volumes and market share decreased in 2021 and the Chinese prices increased substantialy, while the Union industry was significantly loss-making. CCCMC claimed that if Chinese imports would have suppressed the Union industry’s sales prices, the profitability of the Union industry should have improved in 2021.

• (105) With regard to Chinese import prices, as was already explained in the provisional Regulation, the average price of Chinese imports for lysine HCl is extracted from Eurostat for CN code 2922 41 00 . The average price of Chinese imports for lysine sulphate is extracted from a specialised market intelligence provided by the complainant. The data published in Table 4 is the result of a weighted average of import price of lysine HCl and lysine sulphate, based on the imported volumes of each form in a given year.

• (106) The Commission reiterates that it is incorrect to consider average import prices under CN codes 2309 90 31 and 2309 90 96 , as these CN codes included a number of other products between 2020 and 2022. With regard to the investigation period, the Commission explained in recitals 79 to 82 above that it updated the import data for lysine sulphate in the investigation period for CN codes 2309 90 31 and 2309 90 96 , as those codes were reserved only for lysine sulphate in 2023. The updated data resulted in a change of the average import price in the investigation period, and Table 4 of the provisional Regulation is therefore revised as follows:

‘Table 4

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

	2020	2021	2022	IP
China	876	1 342	1 679	1 159
Index	100	153	192	132
Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’	Source: Eurostat (lysine HCl, liquid lysine, lysine sulphate 2023), Specialised market intelligence (lysine sulphate 2020-2022).’

• (107) With regard to the claim questioning price depression and price suppression caused by the Chinese imports to the Union industry, the Commission noted that the prices of dumped Chinese imports were much lower than the sale prices of the Union industry (and the import prices of lysine from Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea) during the period considered. It is clear that such low prices, in combination with a very high market share, amounting to [70 %-79 %] in the investigation period, have dragged down prices of the Union industry, as evidenced by their profitability figures.

• (108) CCCMC requested the Commission to provide a detailed non-confidential version of the injury margin calculation showing that injury was found for 100 % of the imported volumes of the sampled companies, including the adjustments made by the Commission. The Commission rejected the request, and it reminded CCCMC that the undercutting calculations were disclosed to the sampled exported producers only because the calculations are company specific and contain sensitive price data, therefore, they are confidential by nature. All of the data providers had the opportunity to verify in detail the relevant calculation made by the Commission and to comment on it.

• (109) Following final disclosure, CCCMC alleged that the Commission did not provide factual basis for finding the existence of price undercutting ‘for 100 % of the imported volumes of the sampled companies’ considering that there is a mismatch between forms of lysine.

• (110) The Commission informed that details of the calculations of the price undercutting, are confidential and that they had been communicated to the sampled Chinese exporting producers concerned. The Commission maintained that the applied approach was in line with the basic Regulation.

• (111) CCCMC further claimed that the Commission did not provide a factual basis for the finding that the Chinese imports allegedly low prices exercised price depression to the Union industry and that provisional Regulation did not even mention price depression.

• (112) The Commission clarified that recitals 250 and 289 of the provisional Regulation described the price suppression exercised by the Chinese imports. The Commission explained that the Chinese imports were significantly undercutting the Union industry prices in the investigation period and the Chinese prices were below the prices of the Union industry throughout the period considered, dragging down the Union industry sales prices further aggravating the financial losses. This was demonstrated by the Chinese import volumes, market share and average import price. The claim was rejected.

• (113) In absence of other comments, recitals 244 to 250 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.4.1.   General remarks

• (114) In the absence of any comments, recitals 251 to 254 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

4.4.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

• (115) In absence of other comments, recitals 255 to 258 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

• (116) The revision of the Chinese import data for lysine in the investigation period, as explained in recital 79 and shown in the revised Table 3, had an impact on Table 6 of the provisional Regulation. The definitive Table 6 is as follows:

‘Table 6

Sales volume and market share

	2020	2021	2022	IP
Sales volume on the Union market (tonnes)	[52 000 –57 000 ]	[68 000 –75 000 ]	[31 000 –34 000 ]	[7 500 –9 000 ]
Index	100	132	63	16
Market share (%)	10,7	14	7	2
Index	100	130	65	18
Source: Questionnaire reply Eurolysine.’	Source: Questionnaire reply Eurolysine.’	Source: Questionnaire reply Eurolysine.’	Source: Questionnaire reply Eurolysine.’	Source: Questionnaire reply Eurolysine.’

• (117) In absence of any comments, recitals 259 to 261 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.2.3.   Growth

• (118) In absence of any comments, recital 262 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

4.4.2.4.   Employment and productivity

• (119) In absence of any comments, recitals 263 to 265 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.2.5.   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

• (120) In absence of any comments, recitals 266 to 267 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators

4.4.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

• (121) In absence of any comments, recitals 268 to 271 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed

4.4.3.2.   Labour costs

• (122) In absence of any comments, recitals 272 to 273 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.3.3.   Inventories

• (123) In absence of any comments, recitals 274 to 275 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.3.4.   Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

• (124) Following final disclosure, CCCMC alleged that the Commission did not address comments on cash flow increase of Union industry and return on investment.