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

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) 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.

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

(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’).

(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.

(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.

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

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

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

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

(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.

(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.

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

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

(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.

(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.

(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.