Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1342 of 11 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of multilayered wood flooring originating in the People’s Republic of China

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/1342 of 11 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of multilayered wood flooring 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 16 May 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of multilayered wood flooring (MWF) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’, ‘the PRC’, or ‘China’) 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 4 April 2024 by the European Parquet Federation (‘FEP’ or ‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of MWF 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) 2024/2733 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 18 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. The comments received were addressed in recital 390 of the provisional Regulation.

(5) On 15 January 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of MWF originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/78 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Forest, Fusong, Jinfa, the CNFPIA and FEP.

(8) 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 where appropriate.

(9) 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 MWF originating in China (‘definitive disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure.

(10) Following the definitive disclosure, several parties filed written submissions making their views known. These parties were: Amorim, Alliance of MWF Importers (‘AUMI’), Barth, Corà Domenico & Figli Spa (‘Cora Domenico’), CNFPIA, FEP, Holz-Richter GmbH (‘Holz-Richter’), Forest, Fusong, Jinfa, Lovelin of London Ltd (‘Lovelin’), MEFO Floor, Puderbach and Thede & Witte.

(11) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Amorim, Barth, CNFPIA, Holz-Richter, Forest, Fusong, Jinfa and Thede & Witte.

(12) In the absence of comments on the initiation of the investigation after the imposition of provisional measures, recitals 20 to 28 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(13) In the absence of comments concerning the sampling of Union producers, importers and exporting producers in China, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 6 to 12 of the provisional Regulation.

(14) In the absence of comments concerning the investigation period (‘IP’) and the period considered, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation.

(15) In the absence of any comments concerning the product under investigation, the product concerned and the like product, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 29 to 33 of the provisional Regulation.

(16) In the absence of comments on the existence of significant distortions in the country concerned, the Commission confirmed its findings and conclusions set out in recitals 43 to 137 of the provisional Regulation.

(17) Comments on the choice of the representative country and on the Commission’s calculation of benchmarks for SG&A and profit were provided by the European Parquet Federation (‘FEP’) and its members, acting as complainants in this investigation, four importers, namely Puderbach, Amorim, MEFO Floor and Barth, and by the three sampled exporting producers, i.e. the JINFA group, the Fusong group, and the Forest group.

(18) FEP supported the Commission’s choice of representative country and the calculation of benchmarks for SG&A and for profit, as set out in the provisional Regulation.

(19) Puderbach, Amorim, MEFO and Barth claimed that the Turkish companies used in the provisional Regulation to establish SG&A and profit are unsuitable because these companies do not produce the product under investigation. Puderbach, Amorim, MEFO and Barth also stated that there are companies in South East Asia and in Europe (non-EU) which have not been considered by the Commission.

(20) The Commission noted that none of these parties identified any specific companies in their respective submissions, or any specific countries where companies producing MWF with readily available financial data might be found, neither did they propose any other method to establish SG&A and profit. Therefore, the claims were rejected.

(21) The JINFA group and the Fusong group claimed that Türkiye is not an appropriate representative country, in particular in comparison to Malaysia. Therefore, these parties argued that Malaysia should be used as the representative country instead of Türkiye.

(22) The Forest group claimed that the SG&A and profit calculated on the basis of data of the Turkish companies identified by the Commission are unreasonably high and that Malaysian producers should be used instead.

(23) All three sampled exporting producers stated that in case the Commission maintains the selection of Türkiye as the representative country, it should adjust downwards the benchmarks calculated for SG&A and for profit.

(24) The above claims and arguments of the sampled exporting producers are presented and addressed in more detail below.

(26) With respect to point (a) above, the Commission noted that contrary to what the parties suggest, the requirement for the representative country to have a similar level of economic development does not imply that all main economic indicators need to be at similar levels. The level of economic development of a country is generally assessed by its level of income, and for that purpose, the classification of the World Bank is a criterion that is well established in the Commission’s practice and confirmed by the Union courts (5). According to this classification, Türkiye and the PRC were both in the upper middle level income bracket for 2023, and therefore, they had a similar level of economic development, irrespective of their different inflation rates. In view of this, the respective claims were rejected.

(27) With respect to point (b) above, the Commission noted that the parties appear to conflate cost increases in nominal terms, which can indeed be attributed to inflation, with cost increases in real terms, which are attributable to other factors. In the case of both labour and electricity, there was an increase of cost in real terms for these factors from 2022 to 2023. The labour cost increases were largely a result of policy decisions of the Turkish government, including decisions adopted shortly before the 2023 presidential elections in the country (6). Similarly, cost increases in electricity followed similar trends in many other countries and were likely linked to the Russian military aggression against Ukraine. In any event, there is no evidence that these increases in real terms were caused by inflation. In fact, if there is a causal link, it would go in the opposite direction, that is, increase in real costs fuelling inflation, rather than the other way around. In view of these considerations, the respective claims were rejected.

(28) With respect to point (c) above, at the outset the Commission noted that the requirement for undistorted benchmarks for SG&A and profit in Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation should be placed in its appropriate legal context, that is, significant distortions as defined in Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. In view of this, the Commission considered that the existence of inflation in a country does not automatically render financial data from that country distorted and unreasonable.

(29) The Commission also noted that there is no evidence of a clear link between inflation and high profitability, in particular for companies operating in manufacturing sectors, such as the MWF sector or the broader wood sector.

(30) In any event, as explained in recitals 46 and 47 below, the Commission accepted to use an alternative source of financial data for the establishment of an undistorted and reliable benchmark for SG&A and for profit for companies operating in the broader wood sector in Türkiye. This source is readily available and already includes an adjustment for inflation. Consequently, the Commission considered that point (c) is moot and the respective claims were rejected.

(32) With respect to point (a), the Commission observed that as explained in recital 162 of the provisional Regulation, the MWF sector is significantly more developed in Türkiye in comparison to Malaysia. The respective argument was therefore rejected.

(33) With respect to point (b), the Commission noted that its statement in the provisional Regulation on the nature of Unilin (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd’s activities are not speculative. In view of the fact that the company is part of a multinational group and its operations are focused on production, it has been confirmed (9) that Unilin (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd only sells its manufactured goods intragroup and does not currently engage in sales with independent parties. For this reason, certain SG&A functions, such as sales, marketing, research and development are to a large extent centralised, and their costs are not included and are not reflected in the company’s reported SG&A. Therefore, it is fully justified not to consider the financial data of this company for the establishment of benchmark for profit and for SG&A.

(34) Moreover, as regards Kim Teck Lee Timber Flooring Sdn. Bhd, the Commission clarified that it does not consider its levels of SG&A (18,5 %) and profit (8,8 %), both expressed as a percentage of goods sold, unreasonable as such. In view however of the highly specific and non-representative nature of the product produced by this company, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to rely exclusively on this company for the establishment of benchmarks for SG&A and for profit.

(35) The arguments related to point (b) were therefore rejected.

(36) With respect to point (c), for two out of the three companies, i.e. Dominant Enterprise Berhad and Hevea Board Berhad, the Commission found no evidence that these companies are indeed producers of MWF, nor did the Forest group provide any such evidence. Moreover, as the Forest group stated, their financial statements were either unavailable for the relevant period, or they showed losses. For the third company, i.e. KLK Hardwood Flooring Sdn Berhad, the Commission noted that the financial report submitted by the Forest group does not concern this company, but the group to which the company belongs, that is, the Kuala Lumber Kepong Berhad group. The group, which has a broad range of activities had an enormous consolidated revenue of about 5,1 billion USD in 2023 (ending 30 September 2023), with a positive profit. In comparison, for the same period, its flooring subsidiary, KLK Hardwood Flooring Sdn Berhad had according to ORBIS a revenue of about 16 million USD, and a negative profit. It is therefore clear that none of the above companies can be used for the establishment of undistorted and reasonable amount for SG&A and profit. The respective claims were therefore rejected.

(37) With respect to point (d), the Commission noted that Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation is not prescriptive as regards the criteria which should be used to consider an SG&A or profit margin as reasonable, leaving to the Commission a rather broad discretion. While indeed the respective margins in the Union or in the country concerned would not be as such appropriate as benchmarks, they can be an additional element to inform the assessment of whether benchmarks in possible representative countries are reasonable. The respective argument was therefore rejected.

(38) With respect to point (e), the Commission noted that, contrary to what was suggested by the parties, its approach in the provisional Regulation is not contradicted by its practice in other cases. Unlike the present case, in Grain-Oriented Flat Rolled Products from China, the issue was whether the requirement for a similar level of economic development should take a narrow interpretation to concern the specific industrial sector, or as the Commission maintained, it should concern the overall economic development of the country, as reflected in its classification by the World Bank. In case Alkyl Phosphate Esters from China, the issue was whether the allegedly low level of development of a sector in a possible representative country was in itself sufficient to outright dismiss that country, even if there were no other potential representative countries. In the present case, the fact that the MWF sector in Malaysia is underdeveloped called into question the relevance of the available financial data for the establishment of reasonable and undistorted benchmarks for SG&A and for profit. As regards the use of data from the broader wood sector in Türkiye, the Commission considered it likely that the broader wood sector operates in similar conditions as the MWF sector, for instance concerning cost of materials, labour costs, market demand, intensity of competition and technological development. In fact, the larger the MWF sector, the more likely such similarities become. In comparison to the many tens of companies producing MWF in Türkiye, the respective companies identified for Malaysia remain less than five. Moreover, exports of MWF from Türkiye remain significantly higher compared to Malaysia. In view of this, the Commission concluded that financial data from the broader wood sector in Türkiye could be used to establish a reasonable and undistorted benchmark for SG&A and for profit. In any case, Commission's previous practice is not binding as each case is assessed on its own merits. The respective arguments of the parties were therefore rejected.

(39) With respect to point (f), this is addressed in recital 47 below.

(41) As regards point (a) above, as explained in recitals 46 and 47 below, the Commission accepted to use an alternative source of financial data. Consequently, the claim concerning transport related costs in Orma’s financial report was rejected.

(42) As regards point (b) above, the Commission considered that while the separately disclosed item ‘net gain/loss of reporting on the net monetary position’ is linked to inflation, its exclusion cannot be considered an appropriate way to adjust profits for inflation. That is, it cannot be considered that by excluding this item, the resulting profits would represent the profits of the company in the scenario that there was low or no inflation. This is because inflation would also affect revenues and costs that are not included in this item, such as the (nominal) rise in costs of inputs and prices of products of the company.

(43) Similarly, as regards point (c) above, the Commission considered that the deduction of financial expenses, and in particular interest, would not result in the operating expenses that the company would have to incur in the absence of high inflation. This is because, the company would have to incur a level of financial expenses irrespective of inflation. Moreover, the way financial expenses are affected by inflation, in particular as a percentage of the cost of goods sold, would depend on the precise terms of financing agreements, e.g. the indexing according to inflation or the link to a stable currency.

(44) The Commission further noted that, irrespective of the merits of the parties’ arguments for adjustments, such adjustments would be possible only for the financial data of Orma, for which detailed financial reports exist. For the other Turkish producer, AGT, such detailed report is not available, and it cannot be presumed that any adjustments appropriate for Orma would be appropriate also for that company.

(45) As an alternative to adjusting data of individual Turkish producers, the Forest group suggested to establish benchmarks for SG&A and profit based on the Turkish government’s data of the average operating expenses and operating profit of the companies involved in the ‘Manufacture of products of wood, cork, straw and plaiting materials’, i.e. NACE - C-162 (10). Forest group considered that this would be the most reasonable approach in the present context and the Turkish government data are official and reliable. Moreover, as regards the SG&A, Forest group suggested to deduct expenses relating to the transport and insurance, handling and loading/distribution, e.g. based on a ratio calculated from the financial statements of Orma.

(46) The Commission agreed that the data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye on the financial results of companies with activities under NACE – C-162, are official and reliable. Moreover, the Commission noted that, based on the total revenue, they appear to include a much more comprehensive group of companies, and therefore they are significantly less likely to be affected by specificities of individual companies. Moreover, the Commission noted that these data include adjustments for inflation, further strengthening the reliability of the data.

(47) In view of this, the Commission agreed to use these data to establish new benchmarks for SG&A and for profit. The Commission also noted that it has been unable to find any financial data with a comparable scope, detail and reliability for companies operating in Malaysia.

(48) The Commission considered that, although not reported under operating expenses, financial expenses are incurred for the operation of the company and therefore, they should be included in the SG&A.

(49) As regards transport costs and following the claim described in recital 40 above, the Commission noted that in the data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye lacked detailed information on these costs. Therefore, the company’s claim to deduct transport cost from SG&A was rejected.

(50) As regards the calculation of profit, the Commission initially took into account the operating profit (with inflation adjustments) and the financial expenses reported by the Turkish Central Bank.

(51) On this basis, SG&A expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted initially to 22,0 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted initially to 9,7 %.

(52) Following definitive disclosure, the FEP requested that for the calculation of amounts for SG&A costs and for profit, the Commission reverts to the use of the financial data of the Turkish producers identified in the provisional regulation, rather than rely on the data from the Turkish Central Bank for activities falling under NACE-162. The FEP argued that this category includes products which are significantly more distant and different from the product concerned, in terms of production, cost and pricing, therefore making this source of data less reliable and less appropriate.

(53) The Commission noted that neither of the two Turkish companies identified in the provisional regulation are producers of the product under investigation. The FEP has not explained why in comparison to these two companies (whose data is in all likelihood also included in the data of the Turkish Central Bank), other companies included in the data of the Turkish Central Bank would produce products which are on average significantly more distant and different from the product concerned, in terms of production, cost and pricing. If follows that data pertaining to the operations of numerous companies in the relevant sector, likely including producers of the product under investigation, is a more reliable source for reasonable amounts than data pertaining to two companies that do not produce the product under investigation. The arguments of the FEP were therefore rejected.

(54) The FEP also noted that for the calculation of a benchmark for profit on the basis of the data from the Turkish Central Bank, the Commission used only the operating profit. According to the FEP, this represents a departure from the Commission’s standard practice. The FEP therefore requested that the profit before tax is used instead, which includes also income and expenses from other operations as well as extraordinary income and expenses.

(55) The Commission noted that in the data reported by the Turkish Central Bank, the profit before tax included income related to dividends from participations. This income was extraordinarily high in 2023. In view of this, the Commission considered that the profit before tax for this year, which includes this income, would not be an appropriate basis for the calculation of a reasonable amount for profit. This issue does not arise for the financial data for 2022, which as explained in recitals 75 to 76 below, the Commission used for its revised calculations.

(57) As regards point (a) above, the Commission noted that there is a plethora of indicators that can be used for the assessment of a country’s economy, including multiple indicators for the levels of employment, debt, investment, balance of trade and value added by different sectors. While Fusong considers a need for proximity in as many economic indicators as possible, it does not explain which additional indicators – besides inflation - are relevant for meeting the criteria of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation or what should be their relative weight in the assessment. As regards specifically inflation, accepting Fusong’s argument would imply that in case the country concerned is a country with hyperinflation, only countries with hyperinflation could be considered for the selection of the representative country, which would often make such selection impossible. As to inflation allegedly ‘distorting’ the relevant data, this is addressed in recital 65.

(58) The Commission further noted that the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, used by the World Bank for the classification of countries into four groups, is measured in a stable currency (USD) and therefore already takes differences in inflation between countries into account. Therefore, using this indicator provides an objective and tractable method to assess whether two countries have a similar level of economic development for the purposes of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, and has been consistently accepted as appropriate for those purposes by the Union courts. As regards the requirement set by case law that the Commission must select a country in which ‘prices are formed in circumstances that are as similar as possible to those in the country of export’, the Court made it clear that by satisfying the criterion of similar level of economic development, this requirement is met.

(59) In view of the above, Fusong’s claims in point (a) were rejected.

(60) As regards the labour costs referred to in point (b), the Commission noted that according to the arguments provided by Fusong and the references it provided to substantiate them, the aim of the Turkish government when raising the minimum wages during 2023 was to restore the Turkish citizens’ purchasing power. This means that the Turkish government aimed to restore labour costs to the level that would be commensurate with the level of the overall economic development in the country. In view of this, there is no reason to consider that the level of these costs in the IP (expressed in CNY) was distorted.

(61) As regards the electricity costs referred to in point (b), the Commission noted that while Fusong appears to concede that their increase (in real terms) is unrelated to inflation, it argues that they should still be considered as distorted because China did not suffer similar increases, and that for that reason, Türkiye does not fulfil the condition of appropriateness to be selected as the representative country. The Commission noted that in view of the established existence of significant distortions in China in the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation, the evolution of prices in China is not relevant for the assessment of distortions in potential representative countries.

(62) In view of the above, Fusong’s claims in point (b) were rejected.

(63) As regards point (c)(i) the Commission noted that Fusong did not sufficiently substantiate its claim on the alleged link between inflation and high profitability, neither for MWF sector, nor for the broader wood sector. As explained in recital 42, the use of the accounting standard IAS 29 mandated by the Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué (Sequence No: 555) for 2023 does not mean that in the absence of inflation, a company would have realised a level of profits which, in comparison to the profit actually realised, would be lower by the amount reported as net monetary gain. Moreover, the situation of a single company cannot be generalised, neither to the MWF sector, nor to the broader wood sector.

(65) As regards point (c)(ii), and as explained in recital 28 the Commission considered that when it comes to the determination of an undistorted amount for SG&A costs and for profit, the meaning of distortions has to be put in its specific legal context, which is the significant distortions listed in Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. Without such context, the meaning of distortions remains entirely vague and open-ended. In view of the high number of factors affecting prices in a country, if interpreted differently meeting the requirement for undistorted benchmarks and amounts would become nearly impossible. Moreover, even if the ordinary meaning of ‘distortion’ was to be followed, in CCCME the General Court elaborated on the meaning of ‘distorted data’ in the context of an allegation that the Commission used such data in its construction of the normal value under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. The Court found that to be considered as ‘distorted’ it must be demonstrated that such data ‘have been manipulated or are not true to reality’ (14). Similarly to the applicants in in CCCME, Fusong failed to provide evidence to such effect.

(66) As regards point (c)(iii), the Commission noted that, contrary to what Fusong suggests, the data published by the Turkish Central Bank include adjustments for inflation, both in the income as well as in the expenses. While these adjustments are not in the scope of the Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué (Sequence No: 555) for 2023, the Turkish Central Bank considered the reported financial data as sufficiently reliable, accurate and informative to be worthy of publication and use.

(67) In view of the above, the Fusong claims on point (c) where rejected.

(68) As regards point (d), the Commission clarified that the industrial size is not a criterion as such under Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. However, as explained in recital 38, the fact that the MWF sector in Malaysia is underdeveloped calls into question the appropriateness of the available financial data for the establishment of reasonable and undistorted amounts for SG&A costs and for profit. This is in particular the case because these data are limited to a single company with highly specific activities that are likely non-representative for the MWF sector. The Commission, therefore, did not consider it appropriate to rely exclusively on this company’s data for the establishment of reasonable and undistorted amounts for SG&A costs and for profit. The Commission considered that conversely, the size of the MWF sector in Türkiye makes it likely that the broader wood sector operates in similar conditions as the MWF sector, and therefore the data for the broader wood sector in Türkiye can be used to establish the reasonable and undistorted amounts for SG&A costs and for profit. As regards Fusong’s urge to use data for the broader wood sector in Malaysia, it was explained in recital 47, the Commission was not able to find such data. Moreover, Fusong did not provide such data either, nor did it suggest any possible sources.

(69) In view of the above, Fusong’s claims on point (d) were rejected.

(70) Following definitive disclosure Fusong commented on the calculation of the amounts for profit and for SG&A costs and claimed that, whilst the Commission included the financial expenses in the SG&A costs, the same financial expenses were, however, not deducted from the profit which was based on the operating profit rather than on the profit before tax. Therefore, the methodologies applied for the establishment of the amounts for the SG&A costs and for profit were inconsistent and asymmetric.

(71) The Commission noted that in the financial data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye for companies with activities under NACE – C-162, the income from other operations includes an item called ‘Dividends from participations’. For 2023, which is the year initially used for the Commission’s calculation, this item was extraordinarily high in comparison to all previous years and would have a significant impact if included in the calculation of the amount for profit.

(72) For this reason, in its calculation of an amount for profit, the Commission initially used in the definitive general disclosure document the operating profit, which does not include the above item, divided by COGS. In its calculation of a reasonable amount for SG&A costs, the Commission used the sum of operating expenses and financing expenses (long- and short-term liabilities), also divided by the COGS.

(73) The claim of Fusong that the above methodology for the calculation of benchmarks for profit and for SG&A costs is inconsistent and asymmetric was found to be justified. Indeed, while the operating profit should cover also the respective financing expenses in order for the company to be profitable, such financing expenses had been included also in the calculation of the SG&A costs. In other words, the methodology followed in the general disclosure document included financial expenses in both amounts resulting in double counting of financial expenses.

(74) In order to remedy the double counting, it would be necessary to use the profit before tax which would however include ‘Dividends from participations’ which as explained above in recital 71 were found to be extraordinarily high. It was therefore concluded that using the data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye for companies with activities under NACE – C-162 for 2023 is not appropriate as the profitability of the sector was heavily impacted by that item.

(75) In view of the above, the Commission revised its calculation of the amounts for profit and for SG&A, using the financial data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye for companies with activities under NACE – C-162 for 2022. In that year, as well as in previous years, the dividends from participations were at minimal levels and therefore had no impact on the overall profitability of the sector. The amount for SG&A costs and for profit based on the 2022 figures were therefore considered by the Commission as reasonable within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(76) For the revised calculation of the undistorted and reasonable amount for profit, the Commission used the profit before extraordinary items divided by the COGS, noting that the profit before extraordinary items is already net of financial expenses. For the revised calculation of the amount for SG&A costs, the Commission used the same approach as in the general disclosure document, i.e. the sum of operating expenses and financing expenses divided by the COGS based on the financial data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye for companies with activities under NACE – C-162 for 2022.

(77) Following the revision on this basis, SG&A expressed as a percentage of COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 16,1 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 8,4 %. An additional disclosure was issued on 12 May 2025 in this respect (here-after also referred to as ‘ADD’).

(78) Following definitive disclosure, and referring to the calculation of the SG&A costs on the basis of the data reported by the Central Bank of Türkiye for companies with activities under NACE – C-162 for 2023, Forest reiterated its request for the exclusion of what it considered as extraordinarily high finance expenses. Instead, Forest suggested to calculate the SG&A costs on the basis of operating expenses, or in the alternative, using the finance expenses to COGS ratio of 2022.

(79) In view of the revision of the calculation of SG&A costs on the basis of the respective 2022 data as explained in recital 76 above, the Commission considered the point moot.

(80) Following the ADD, the Commission received comments from the FEP, Fusong, and Forest.

(82) As regards points (a) and (b), the Commission noted that in the comparison made by the FEP, the difference in the calculated amount of profit between the year 2022 and 2023 using profit before tax would be about 50 %, and therefore, contrary to what the FEP appears to suggest, would have a very significant impact in the calculation of normal value. In any event, the comparison of results between the year 2022 and 2023 using profit before tax is irrelevant. The issue that the Commission addressed in its additional disclosure is primarily an issue of methodology, which however also affects the dumping calculation. As explained in recital 71 above, the Commission considered that including in its calculation an item that appears both extraordinary and entirely unrelated to the companies’ activities would be incorrect for the purposes of this calculation.

(83) As regards the use of financial data from a period that does not coincide with the IP, the Commission noted that in any event, past practice is not binding, and each case is assessed on its own merits. According to the case-law, the lawfulness of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties must be assessed in the light of legal rules and, in particular, the provisions of the basic Regulation, not on the basis of the EU institutions’ alleged previous practice in taking decisions (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 10 February 2021, RFA International v Commission, C-56/19 P, EU:C:2021:102, paragraph 79; of 4 October 2006, Moser Baer India v Council, T-300/03, EU:T:2006:289, paragraph 45; and of 18 October 2016, Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council, T-351/13, not published, EU:T:2016:616, paragraph 107).

(84) Moreover, the Commission considered that the level of profits used in other cases with Türkiye as a representative country is also irrelevant and cannot be used to assess whether the amount of profit established in the case at hand is reasonable or excessive. In this respect the Commission noted that the cases referred to by the FEP in their submission concern sectors other than the MWF sector or even the broader wood sector.

(85) As regards point (c), the Commission noted that pursuant to the basic Regulation, the calculation of the dumping margin is entirely independent of the calculation of the injury margin. Therefore, the consideration of the closeness of the dumping margin to the injury margin is entirely irrelevant.

(86) As regards point (d), the Commission clarified that, contrary to what the FEP suggests, the reasons for using operating profit in the definitive disclosure were made known at the same time to all interested parties.

(88) In response to point (a), and as explained in recital 71 above, while the data of 2023 were reliable, they did not allow for the calculation of a reasonable amount for profit and for SG&A costs. The use of data from a period which does not coincide with the IP was justified in the case at hand in the absence of appropriate data for the IP in Türkiye or any other possible representative country for the reasons explained in recitals 46 to 48 and recital 76 above. In this case the Commission used data of 2022, which it considered reliable and sufficiently recent and therefore leading to amounts for SG&A costs and for profit that are ‘undistorted’ and ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the last sub-paragraph of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. Fusong failed to demonstrate the opposite.

(89) In response to point (b), the Commission considered that income from other operations and expenses from other operations are generally part of the normal operations of a company in a manufacturing sector. Provided that their magnitude is not extraordinary, as shown for instance by comparing it against the key operating items such as turnover or operating profit, they can be included in the calculation of reasonable amounts for profit and for SG&A costs. Fusong failed to show that including such income would lead to amounts for SG&A costs and for profit that are either not reasonable or distorted.

(90) In response to point (c), the Commission considered that, contrary to what Fusong claims, there is no asymmetry in the calculation. As regards the two alternative calculations suggested by Fusong, the Commission observed that in both alternative calculations, income and expenses from other operations are effectively completely disregarded. For the reasons explained in recital 89 above, the Commission did not consider appropriate to disregard them, and therefore, did not accept Fusong alternative calculations.

(91) In view of the above, Fusong’s claims were rejected.

(92) The Forest group claimed that the use of sawn wood to construct a benchmark for veneers is unjustified, without however providing any elements to substantiate this claim in the open version of its comments.

(93) The Commission considered that its approach for the establishment of a benchmark for veneers on the basis of the cost for sawn wood is fully justified, in light of the fact that prices of veneers are significantly influenced by the wood species and therefore a benchmark based on a generic HS code regardless of the wood specie would not reflect the real market prices of veneers, as explained in detail in recital 170 of the provisional Regulation. In view of the fact that the Forest group did not provide any elements to substantiate its claims and to contradict the Commission's conclusions, these claims were rejected.

(94) The Fusong Group claimed that the application of an undistorted benchmark for the main input material, namely oak logs used by the group in the production of the product concerned, was unwarranted. The company asserted that the vast majority of logs are purchased directly from Europe, as it claimed was confirmed by supporting documents presented during the investigation. According to the company, the prices of oak logs are non-distorted and reflect the international market conditions. Moreover, the company stated that purchasing transactions prices were expressed in euro and there is no local production of oak logs due to the natural forestry felling ban. Thus, in Fusong’s opinion, the prices could not be affected by the distortions in China.

(95) The claims concerning the direct purchasing of logs were not supported by adequate evidence. The Commission was not presented with any evidence confirming that the company purchased a significant quantity of raw materials directly from European suppliers. From the documents and information provided in the investigation by the exporting producer, it is apparent that nearly all logs were purchased from Chinese companies (traders), even though the goods were dispatched from third countries. The company did not present any evidence contradicting the established significant distortion in the PRC, as described in section 3 of the provisional regulation. There was no further elaboration on how the currency used for purchasing affects distortion in the market, and the Commission did not consider this argument relevant to the analysis in this matter. Furthermore, the ban on harvesting oak for commercial use does not preclude the existence of distortion. It must be recalled that the distortion pertains to the entire wood sector, including suppliers, as mentioned in recital 125 of the provisional regulation: ‘When the producers of the product concerned purchase/contract these inputs, the prices they pay (and which are recorded as their costs) are clearly exposed to the same systemic distortions mentioned before. For instance, suppliers of inputs employ labour that is subject to distortions. They may borrow money that is subject to distortions in the financial sector/capital allocation. In addition, they are subject to the planning system that applies across all levels of government and sectors.’ Given that the vast majority of logs are purchased from Chinese companies, the Commission was unable to positively establish, on the basis of the evidence on file, that the purchase costs of the oak logs by the Fusong Group were not distorted. The claim was therefore rejected.

(96) Following definitive disclosure, the Fusong Group further claimed that they purchased the vast majority of oak logs from traders based outside mainland China, based outside mainland China, in a third country which cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons. These traders are incorporated under local law and should not be considered as Chinese traders. Moreover, the two main traders are part of the worldwide groups, and one listed on the NASDAQ and is subject to the US stock exchange regulations and governance rules. Fusong repeated that logs are shipped directly from Europe. In Fusong's opinion, the prices are at the market level and therefore benchmark for oak logs should not be applicable.

(97) The Commission stated that the place of dispatch the goods is irrelevant in the assessment of the price distortion. As it was established in recital 54 the distortion concerns also suppliers. The fact that the company is based outside mainland China, in a third country which cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality reasons, does not change the fact that the trader in fact is a Chinese owned company and is affected by the significant distortions found for the country. It must be noted, that the main supplier, which holding company is listed on the NASDAQ, has a subsidiary company in mainland China, and moreover the beneficial owner and director of the holding company is a member of one of the committees of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. The relations of the trader’s management with the Chinese political body and ownership of the Chinese based company also confirms that purchases via this trader shall be considered as subject to distortions. As regards the second group, the company is located in the same country as the previous one, and their price are at the similar level as the major supplier, what indicates that are also affected by the distortions. Finally all these suppliers are active on the Chinese market and therefore their prices are affected by the significant distortions through forces of competition. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(98) Following the additional disclosure, which did not address the claim on the benchmark prices for logs, Fusong requested the Commission to reconsider its assessment in this regard by referring to the comments on the definitive disclosure. The Commission’s assessment remained unchanged.

(99) Following definitive disclosure, Fusong argued that if Türkiye is retained as the representative country, benchmarks for labour and electricity should be adjusted downwards, to remove the effects of extraordinary influences in the country such as inflation. Fusong proposed using the average inflation rate in Türkiye over a sufficiently long period prior to 2021, during the years when exceptionally high inflation or any other extraordinary circumstances did not impact the country, in order to reconstruct the labour and electricity costs that should have been borne by local producers during the IP in the absence of such extraordinary influences.

(100) The Commission noted that for the reasons explained in recitals 60 and 61, labour and electricity costs should not be considered distorted. The Fusong claims on a need for adjustment were therefore rejected.

(101) The FEP also requested a confirmation that the normal value includes an estimate of manufacturing overhead costs, to cover manufacturing costs not included in the factors of production.

(102) The Commission confirmed that, as explained in recitals 193 to 194 of the provisional Regulation, such costs have been established and included in the normal value.

(103) In the absence of comments on the export price, recitals 201 to 202 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(104) Following the provisional disclosure, two exporting producers, namely Fusong Group and Forest Group, claimed that the adjustment of the normal value due to the non-refundable VAT on exports of the product concerned should not apply to them since they actually received a VAT refund. The companies indicated that they received VAT refund for their export sales because they did not export the product concerned under the tariff code 4418 75 . Instead, they claimed to have exported product concerned under other sub-headings, namely 4412 92 and 4412 52 . The companies further claimed that they presented customs export declarations and VAT refund documentation confirming actual receipt of VAT refund.

(105) The Commission reviewed the claims submitted by the exporting producers regarding the classification of the product concerned under different HS codes. Upon examination, it found no substantive evidence to support the fact that these two exporting producers classified the exports of the products under a different code that HS code under which the product concerned should be classified which is HS code 4418 75 . The Commission did not question the actual declaration of the export sales nor VAT refund forms. It assessed whether the sales for export of the product concerned if declared under the corresponding HS code were subject to VAT refund. The Commission then established that the product concerned, which falls under the HS code 4418 75 , is not subject to a VAT refund. None of the interested parties objected that the definition of the goods falling under HS code 4418 75 in China aligns with the definition used in this investigation nor did they explain why they declared their export sales under a different HS code and not under HS code 4418 75 .

(106) The two exporting producers referred to the documentation they have presented during the investigation regarding the VAT declarations. However, they have not presented any documentation or rationale to justify a deviation from classifying the product concerned under any other code than 4418 75 . The mere fact that exporting producers declared the product under different code does not confirm its correctness.The Commission, therefore, concluded that the self-declaration of the transaction for exports and its tariff classification by the companies, in the absence of any other documentation confirming that this classification was correct, does not constitute sufficient evidence classifying the product under the code with VAT refund. The companies, by declaring the export sales of the product concerned under the code not corresponding with the definition of the product concerned, effectively decreased the export price by receiving the refund of the VAT.

(107) The Commission did not find any evidence indicating that the product concerned should be classified under different subheading than 4418 75 , therefore, the normal value was appropriately adjusted by the non-refundable VAT. The exporting producers did not provide any evidence that they should be exempted from the application of this rule, and the sales of the product concerned for export should not be classified under the HS code 4418 75 . Therefore, the claims were rejected.

(108) In their comments following definitive disclosure, Forest and Fusong reiterated their claim that transport and distribution expenses should have been deducted from the SG&A costs calculation. The parties claimed that, since such expenses have been deducted from the export price, they should also be deducted from the normal value to ensure that the principle of fair comparison is respected. To estimate the transport and distribution expenses, the parties reiterated their proposal to use the readily available detailed financial data of Orma. In particular, they proposed to calculate Orma’s ratio of transport and distribution expenses over its total operating expenses and apply this ratio to the operating expenses reported by the Turkish Central Bank for activities under NACE-162. Moreover, Forest considered that if the Commission cannot estimate the transport and distribution expenses with sufficient precision, it should not deduct transport and distribution expenses from the export price.

(109) The Commission noted that, when calculating normal value at ex-works level, it would normally deduct transport expenses where such expenses are clearly and separately identified. In this regard, the Commission recalled that in its judgment in CCCME, the General Court first recalled that in accordance with the case-law, if a party claims adjustments under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation in order to make the normal value and the export price comparable for the purpose of determining the dumping margin, that party must prove that its claim is justified. The burden of proving that the specific adjustments listed in Article 2(10)(a) to (k) of the basic Regulation must be made lies with those who wish to rely on them (15). It follows that, in that case, as in this investigation, it was for the interested parties, in accordance with that case-law, to demonstrate the need for the adjustment requested in support of evidence which they adduced during the investigation (16).

(110) The General Court then held that it should be noted that although the practice of making adjustments may prove to be necessary, under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, to take account of differences between the export price and the normal value which affect their comparability, such deductions cannot be made with respect to a value which has been constructed and which is not, therefore, genuine. That value is not generally affected by factors which might damage its comparability, because it has been artificially established (17). Moreover, as in the case of CCCME, in the case at hand the construction of the normal value per product type on an ‘ex-works’ basis included a reasonable amount for SG&A costs and there was no concrete evidence showing whether (and if so to what extent) the SG&A costs used included concrete transport and distribution expenses. Consequently, in view of the Commission’s discretion in the application of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation (18), the Commission’s approach adhered to the most recent case-law concerning unsubstantiated claims that amounts for SG&A costs used in the construction of the normal value under Article 2(6a)(a), which are considered by the Commission to be reasonable for the ex-works level of trade, contain transport costs. The claim was therefore rejected.

(111) Moreover, as explained in recital 49, the data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye lacked detailed information on these costs. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the ratio of transport and distribution expenses over the overall operating expenses, provided that they have been included in the first place which was not demonstrated by the interested parties in the present proceeding, may vary considerably depending on factors such as the location of the factory, the destinations to which the product is shipped (19), and the terms of delivery. In the absence of any specific information on these factors in data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye, the Commission considered that an adjustment on the basis of the financial data of Orma was not appropriate.

(112) Moreover, the Commission considered that including the transport expenses in the export price would not allow for a fair comparison. This is because doing so would imply that the transport and distribution expenses incurred by Turkish companies in the broader wood sector are similar to those of Chinese exporting producers of MWF. However, there is no basis for such assumption.

(113) Following additional disclosure, Fusong and Forest reiterated their claims on the downward adjustment of the SG&A costs on the basis of the transport costs incurred by Orma, without however making new arguments. These claims were therefore rejected.

(114) In conclusion, the Commission considered that in view of the information available to it, an adjustment of SG&A costs for transport costs was not warranted and the parties’ claims were rejected.

(115) Following definitive disclosure, two groups, the Fusong and the Forest, commented the findings based on which the normal value had been adjusted for non-refundable VAT.

(116) Firstly, both parties claimed that the Commission does not have a competency to assess the Chinese tariff classification. Besides, they claimed that the Commission's assessment is incorrect, and in China, the product concerned can be classified under the code 4412 52 or 4412 92 . Forest presented the Chinese customs notes - Customs Tariff Goods and Tariff Item Notes, notes for chapter 44 with subheadings’ notes. On this basis Forest claimed that product concerned should be classified under heading 4412 . Furthermore Forest noted that the Commission did not pursue any explanation or confirmation from the Chinese customs authorities in this regard.

(117) Secondly, Forest claimed that the Commission should provide the exact legal basis for the adjustment and elaborate on the fulfilment of the criteria for its application, namely that the export price and normal value are not on a comparable basis, and that there is a specific factor affecting the prices and price comparability.

(118) Lastly, both parties claimed that irrespective of the assessment of the codes applicable to the product concerned, the Commission should compare the normal value and export price with actual tax refunded as the export price was actually net of VAT.

(119) Regarding the first claim, the Commission did not take any position in evaluation or assessing the Chinese tariff classification. The Commission noted that the product concerned is classified under the HS code, the description of which is harmonized and therefore the same in both in the EU and China. For this reason, the Commission concluded that the product concerned falls under the HS code 4418 75 . The Commission did not interfere in the Chinese tariff nomenclature, but established that the code and the description of HS code 4418 75 aligns with the product under investigation. Based on this finding, it has been established that the product concerned falls under the HS code 4418 75 in PRC, for which there is no VAT refund in case of export sales. Regarding the allegation that the Commission did not consult GOC in this regard is groundless. As it has been described in recital 16 of the Provisional Regulation GOC did not cooperate in this investigation and, despite providing the GOC with the provisional regulation, and definitive disclosure document, the GOC did not provide any comments, let alone evidence to the contrary, on this matter.

(120) Forest claimed in their comments that according to the explanatory notes to the Chinese Customs Tariff, heading 4418 does not refer to the product under investigation although it quoted that this code includes ‘assembled flooring, (including parquet flooring) or [...]’ which precisely is the product under investigation. Moreover, Forest omitted to mention in its comments, that in the same explanatory notes, there is an exclusion of some products, namely: This heading does not include: (1) Plywood, veneered panels, and similar laminated wood, which have a thin wood veneer attached to the surface to mimic the assembled flooring of heading 44.18 (heading 44.12). Therefore, only products with a thin face veneer that are imitating the product under investigation but are not the product under investigation fall under the code used by the exporters which is 4412 52 and 4412 92 .

(121) Moreover, according to the Forest’s interpretation some other products can be classified under the heading 4418 , like for instance multi-strip wear layers. The Commission noted that the Forest exported also products classified as multi-strip and still did not apply the HS 4418 for these sales. These sales have been reported without any taxes. It is then apparent that even based on the explanatory notes, the codes applied by the company for the products sold for export do not correspond to the product description. Therefore, the Commission did not change its conclusion that the product concerned falls under the heading HS 4418 .

(122) Secondly, the Commission hereby confirms that the legal basis used is the Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, which refers to other factors that could affect the price comparison. The companies claimed that non-refundable VAT for the export sales of the products under code 4418 75 does not affect the price comparison as the exporters actually received the refunded VAT for these sales. According to the exporting producers, the fact that the companies received the VAT refund because the goods were classified under HS code of products other than the product under investigation is irrelevant, and only the fact of the actual received refund should be taken into consideration for price comparison and adjustments under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation. The Commission reiterated that based on the finding in the investigation, the product under investigation does not benefit from the VAT refund; therefore, the normal value has been adjusted accordingly. Therefore, an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) was justified.

(123) Also, Forest’s claim that Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation requires a higher legal and evidentiary standard for adjustments in comparison to those applicable under points (a) – (j) is not accurate. The standard required under point (k) always aims at ensuring the fair comparison between the export price and the normal value, as set out in general terms in the chapeau of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, the legal and evidentiary standard for adjustments under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation is the same as that applicable under other letters of that provision. Thus, the Commission rejected the claim and stayed with the assessment in recitals 104 – 107.

(124) The companies’ claims that their export price is net of VAT have not been accepted due to the reasons mentioned in recitals 116-118 above, using the HS code that is not in line with the product description in the customs nomenclature. None of the companies substantiated their claims with sufficient evidence showing that the classification under other code should be applied to the product under investigation.

(125) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the product under investigation falls under HS code 4418 75 and the normal value should be adjusted accordingly for the non-refundable VAT for the fair comparison. The companies' claims in this regard were rejected.

(126) Following the additional disclosure, which did not concern the claims on the adjustment for non-refundable VAT, both parties requested the Commission to reconsider its assessment in this regard refereeing to their previous comments on definitive disclosure. The Commission’s assessment remained unchanged.

(127) Following the revision of the benchmarks for the SG&A and for profit as described in recitals 46 to 51, the Commission revised the dumping margins.

(129) Most of the claims received did not follow, or followed partially, the structure of the provisional Regulation. The Commission did its utmost to include the claims received under the appropriate sections of the Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission notes that many of the claims submitted by CNFPIA under the heading ‘injury’ were actually related to arguments on causation. Therefore, the Commission has addressed such claims under section 5 of this Regulation.

(130) In the absence of comments concerning the definition of the Union industry and Union production, recitals 216 to 217 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(131) In the absence of comments concerning the determination of the relevant Union market, recitals 218 to 221 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(132) In the absence of comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 222 to 226 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(133) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the import quantities in square meters (m2) published by Eurostat showed a sharper decrease of imports during the period considered than the decrease of imports shown by the Eurostat data adjusted by the Commission in Table 3 of the provisional Regulation.

(134) The Commission recalls that it has already justified in recital 227 of the provisional Regulation the need to adjust Eurostat’s import quantities in square metres in view of the flaws in the unadjusted Eurostat data. Therefore, the Commission does not find merits in in discussing the trends followed by the unadjusted data.

(135) Following definitive disclosure, the CNFPIA stated that it questioned the need for an adjustment to import data and considered that the methodology used by the Commission failed to be based on objective, verifiable and credible evidence.

(136) The adjustment made by the Commission was justified in recital 227 of the provisional Regulation. However, CNFPIA’s comments were rejected as no reason was supplied to support the view that the adjustment was questionable or that the methodology was not based on objective, verifiable and credible evidence.

(137) CNFPIA also criticised the use made of the import data (in absolute terms and in relation to consumption) in the injury findings. CNFPIA focussed almost exclusively on the fall in import quantities in the IP and the fall in market share in that year.

(138) In its analysis in the provisional Regulation (in section 4.4.1 which includes Table 3) the Commission presented a more balanced assessment of the import data over the period considered and explained its context. In fact, the fall in consumption in the IP (29 %) means that the market share data gives a better reading of import volume trends than absolute figures. As stated at recital 231 of the provisional Regulation imports from China increased from 16,8 % in 2020 to 22,5 % which represented an increase of 34 %. The fall in market share in 2023 was due to high levels of importers’ stocks at the end of 2022. In addition, when assessing the injurious nature of imports the CNFPIA did not consider that prices from China fell sharply in 2023 and suppressed Union industry prices. Therefore, the claim that the levels of imports from China in the period considered and the IP were not injurious was rejected.

(139) In the absence of further comments concerning the quantity and market share of imports from China, recitals 227 to 231 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(140) The CNFPIA submitted a claim on import quantities as regards their impact on the causation of injury. This claim has been discussed in section 5.1 below.

(141) Following provisional disclosure, Amorim, Barth, the CNFPIA, MEFO Floor and Puderbach claimed that the level of trade adjustment (LoT) used by the Commission in recital 242 of the provisional Regulation should be increased as it does not cover all the warehousing, logistics, sales and marketing expenses faced by a distributor in the Union market. In particular, Amorim proposed using the SG&A of a company in Türkiye (the Reference country), as indicated in recital 199 of the provisional Regulation, and which amounted to 19,5 % of the cost of goods sold.

(142) The Commission found this claim unsubstantiated as these parties did not submit any evidence to support the claim. In section 7.2 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission referred to the lack of verified data available to the Commission from the importing and trading sector. Only one importer representing 6 % of imports from China in the IP, fully co-operated with the investigation. As a result, there is insufficient data available to justify increasing the LoT adjustment indicated in recital 242 of the provisional Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission considered that Amorim’s claim concerning the use of a 19,5 % SG&A of a company in Türkiye is incorrect since the adjustment to the LoT cannot be based on SG&A data from the representative country and expressed as a percentage of COGS rather than turnover. Amorim’s argument is in any event also devoid of purpose, as the Commission changed the level of SG&A as indicated in recital 51 of this regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(143) In the absence of further comments concerning the prices of imports from China and price undercutting, recitals 232 to 244 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(144) Following definitive disclosure, Amorim commented that the Commission’s undercutting analysis was flawed because it did not take adequate account of differences in product characteristics such as grading and branding.

(145) However, the comments made do not provide any detail to explain any asymmetry that may have been made in respect of grading or branding or how such perceived asymmetries could be addressed. In respect of grading the Commission refers to recital 240 of the provisional Regulation which explains the method used by the Commission to take account of grading in its calculations to the extent possible. The Commission concluded that, as it had no information on file to demonstrate that the grading issue was not properly addressed, it was not in a position to adjust the calculations for this reason in favour of either the Union industry or the Chinese exporting producers. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(146) Holz-Richter and Barth also commented on issues of price comparability in their comments following the definitive disclosure. These parties commented that the Commission’s undercutting analysis was flawed because it did not take adequate account the fact that Chinese imports consisted mainly of low-quality grades.

(147) The Commission took into account grading in the price comparisons and disclosed its calculations to the exporting producers concerned. Indeed, the Commission does not contest that a high quantity of Chinese imports was of non-prime grades, but these imports were compared solely to the non-prime grades of the Union industry. The Commission refers to recital 240 of the provisional Regulation which explains the method used by the Commission to take account of grading in its calculations to the extent possible. All prices used in the calculations (in respect of both Chinese exports and Union industry sales) were verified on spot. There was no evidence that large quantities of very low graded Chinese products were sold on the Union market or that such very low-grade products were more prevalent than within those sold by the Union industry. The claim was therefore rejected.

(148) Amorim also commented that the Commission’s undercutting analysis was flawed because the 5 % LoT adjustment made did not take adequate account of differences in LoT. Holz-Richter also made claims related to the impact of sales chains on the calculations. Amorim stated that it did not agree with the Commission’s rebuttal of its original comments (described above in recitals 141 and 142) because the comment had only been rejected on ‘technical grounds’ – i.e. due to a lack of evidence to support the claim. The Commission maintains its view that no verifiable evidence was submitted to support an increase in the LoT adjustment.

(149) In recital 142 the Commission further explained that the higher adjustment suggested by Amorim (19,5 % of CoGS based on Turkish data) was not just rejected based on a lack of evidentiary support, it was also from a non-Union source. Furthermore, this figure would have to be reduced as it was a percentage of COGS, not turnover, and, as it would only be applied to Union sales which were made through related traders (around 67 %), would have to be reduced even further.

(150) The resulting LoT adjustment suggested by Amorim when put in its proper context would result in an adjustment of around 10 %. Amorim claimed in its submission that the LoT adjustment was not adequate and this risked to distort the undercutting margin (upwards), so that its impact on the causation analysis would be overstated. However, an adjustment of 10 % would not be effective to reduce the undercutting margins found in recital 238 of the Provisional Regulation to levels which would change the injury and causation findings. The claims made on undercutting were therefore rejected.

(151) Holz-Richter commented on bonuses or early payment discounts offered by Union producers that are not offered by Chinese exporters.

(152) As the calculations were made using prices net of all discounts, the Commission is satisfied that this issue did not distort the calculations. The claim was therefore rejected.

(153) Holz-Richter also commented on other issues which could have distorted the undercutting calculations such as bonuses or early payment discounts, freight rates and credit costs.

(154) As the calculations were made using prices net of all discounts, the Commission is satisfied that this issue did not distort the calculations. Regarding freight rates and credit costs, the calculations were made at a CIF level for exporting producers. In addition, credit costs were not deducted from the CIF prices of the exporting producers. These claims were therefore rejected.

(155) The CNFPIA also made claims on import prices as regards their impact on the causation of injury. These claims are discussed in section 5.1 below.

(156) In the absence of comments concerning general remarks on the economic situation of the Union industry, recitals 245 to 249 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(157) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the decrease in production, production capacity and capacity utilisation in the IP was caused by the decrease in consumption. The claims related to causation are discussed in section 5 below.

(158) In the absence of further comments concerning production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, recitals 250 to 253 in the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(159) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA disagreed with the Commission’s finding that there is a link between the decrease in Union sales quantities of the Union industry and the market penetration of the Chinese imports. In particular, the CNFPIA argued that i) the Commission did not admit that that Chinese imports in 2023 fell by a larger percentage than the Union industry, which CNFPIA considers as an indicator that these trends were caused by the decrease in consumption and by the increase in production costs and ii) that the Commission has given less weight in its assessment to this factor than to the decrease in Union sales.

(160) The Commission disagreed with this claim. Regarding point (i), the Commission gave a transparent presentation of the data and where appropriate a year-by-year analysis of the development of sales, volumes and market shares. Regarding point (ii), the Commission made a comprehensive analysis of all injury indicators and its conclusions on injury were fully explained. This claim was therefore rejected.

(161) In the absence of further comments concerning sales volume and market share, recitals 254 to 259 in the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(162) The implications of the claim on causality is addressed in section 5.1 below.

(163) In the absence of comments concerning growth, recital 260 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(164) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that developments in employment and productivity should be attributed to the fall in production and sales quantities.

(165) The Commission did not find merit in this claim as recital 286 of the provisional Regulation already stated that finding.

(166) In the absence of further comments concerning employment and productivity, recitals 261 to 263 in the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(167) In the absence of comments concerning the magnitude of the dumping margin and the recovery from past dumping, recitals 264 to 265 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(168) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that it was only in the year 2023 when the Union industry was not able to pass on cost increases in their sales prices.

(169) The Commission disagrees with this claim. As stated in recital 276 of the provisional Regulation, the profitability of the Union industry started to decline in 2022, which was a year when costs were increasing as shown in Table 8 of the provisional Regulation. As a result, the Union industry’s ability to pass on cost increases to their customers started to decline in 2022. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(170) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the comparison between Union industry prices and costs in Table 8 of the provisional Regulation did not support the finding in Table 11 of that Regulation, that is, that Union sales were loss-making in 2023.

(171) The Commission disagrees with this claim. As stated in recital 267 of the provisional Regulation, sales’ prices were those made by the Union industry to unrelated parties (including the sales made by their related traders), whereas the unit costs reported were only the cost of production incurred solely by the sampled Union producers. The Union industry was loss-making in 2023 because such sales incurred further costs, that is, those of the related traders referred to in recital 18 of the provisional Regulation. This claim was therefore rejected.

(172) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA contested the finding of price suppression mentioned in recitals 267 to 270 of the provisional Regulation. In particular, the CNPFIA claimed that the Commission did not assess whether domestic prices would have increased in the absence of the allegedly dumped imports from China.

(173) The Commission disagrees with this claim. The Commission’s assessment in the provisional Regulation mainly relies on the impact of Chinese import prices on the situation of the Union industry, for instance in sections 4.5.4 and 5.1 of the provisional Regulation (‘conclusion on injury’ and ‘the effects of the dumped imports’ respectively). Therefore, the Commission not only fully analysed price suppression, but concluded that the fall in profitability in 2022 and 2023 was due mainly to Chinese imports. In the absence of large quantities of low-priced Chinese imports, the Union industry would have been in a much better position to face the challenges of rising costs and falling consumption in 2022 and 2023. This claim was therefore rejected.

(174) Amorim returned to the issue of prices and factors affecting prices (section 4.5.3.1 of the provisional Regulation) in its comments following the definitive disclosure. Amorim commented that the Commission’s analysis did not properly take into account that ‘other factors’, such as cost increases and a fall in consumption, had an impact on price suppression and falling profits.

(175) The Commission disagreed that these factors were not taken into account. In fact, both issues are included in the analysis at section 4.5.3.1 and more detailed analysis was included in sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of that Regulation. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(176) Amorim also commented that the analysis of production costs at Table 8 was flawed because it covered only production costs.

(177) In fact, Table 8 of the provisional Regulation covers all costs of the production entity of the sampled Union producers. This includes their SG&A costs for direct sales. By presenting the costs in this way the Commission was able to demonstrate the importance of cost increases relative to the full costs of the production companies. The main cost increases related to raw materials as stated at recital 268 of the provisional Regulation which are of course production costs. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(178) In addition, Amorim claimed that the profitability analysis was flawed because it did not take into account the sales costs of the related traders.

(179) However, the profitability data at Table 11 of the provisional Regulation covered the sales turnover and costs of the three sampled Union producers and their related traders. Table 11 of the provisional Regulation makes it clear that the sales turnover is to unrelated customers in the Union. The Commission disclosed the calculation of profitability to each sampled Union producer, which showed a breakdown of turnover and costs by Group entity. The calculation also demonstrated that the profitability trend only related to Union production, not production of other group entities which could be located outside the Union. There being no mismatch between revenue and costs the Commission maintains its profitability figures are accurate and the claim of Amorim was rejected.

(180) Amorim and CNFPIA also commented that the Commission failed to perform a counterfactual analysis of the factors affecting price suppression. They claim that to establish price suppression under WTO and EU law, a counterfactual analysis is essential. By this they mean if Union prices would have increased in the absence of allegedly dumped imports.

(181) First, the Commission recalled that the analysis performed in the causation section of the provisional Regulation discussed the issue of increased prices and the Union industry’s response to those increases. Similarly, the provisional Regulation also discussed the reduction in consumption and its impact on the Union industry. It was stated at recital 316 of the provisional Regulation that producers must be able to adapt to increases in raw material and energy costs by passing on such increases to customers. If not, such producers would not have a viable business. The Commission identified the magnitude of cost increases in Table 8 of the provisional Regulation but noted that the reason why such cost increases could not be fully passed on to its customers was mainly due to dumped imports. This kind of analysis was performed on a year-by-year basis for both cost increases and the reduction in consumption. The Commission was able to demonstrate that dumped imports played a major role in suppressing prices and in losses in sales volume and market share. Therefore, the Commission can reasonably conclude that, absent the significant price suppression as shown in the underselling margins, price increases would have occurred in the absence of imports of MWF from China. The Commission therefore rejects the claim that its analysis was not compatible with WTO rules or EU law.

(182) In respect of Amorim’s claim that intra-Union competition was the cause of price suppression the Commission points out that this claim does not stand up to scrutiny based on data held on the case file. The product types of the three Union producers were often in competition with each other but were at a higher level than the prices of the comparable types of MWF sold by the sampled Chinese exporting producers. In addition, all three exporting producers were found to undercut the Union industry. This claim was therefore rejected.

(183) In their comments following the definitive disclosure CNFPIA considered that the Commission failed to base its injury determination on positive evidence and failed to conduct a price effect analysis as required by the basic Regulation. As part of its motivation for this view CNFPIA stated ‘The Commission has failed to analyse the effect of imports of MWF from China on EU prices of MWF. It has not analysed if there has been a significant price undercutting compared with prices in the EU or the effect of imports of MWF from China has depressed EU prices of MWF or prevented their increase’.

(184) These claims completely ignore the assessments made by the Commission at sections 4.4.2 and 4.5.3.1 of the provisional Regulation and are therefore rejected.

(185) Also, in respect of price effects CNFPIA compared the price and costs data shown at Table 8 of the provisional Regulation and concluded that Chinese imports could not be a cause of injury because the delta between prices and costs narrowed in the IP.

(186) This analysis could not be accepted because it ignored the substantial price undercutting established by the Commission in the IP. In addition, the costs quoted related solely to those of the production entity of the sampled producer. Additional costs were incurred by the related traders of each producer. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(187) In the absence of further comments concerning prices and factors affecting prices, recitals 266 to 270 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(188) The impact of the claims on prices and costs as regards causation are discussed in section 5 below.

(189) In the absence of comments concerning labour costs, recital 271 to 272 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(190) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that inventory increases were not caused by Chinese imports but by inflation, increasing production costs and the decrease in Union consumption.

(191) The Commission disagrees with this claim. While the factors listed by the CNFPIA played a role in inventory increases, the Commission also concluded in recital 284 of the provisional Regulation that increases in Chinese market shares and price depression over the period considered were also important factors. This claim was therefore rejected.

(192) In the absence of further comments concerning inventories, recitals 273 to 274 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(193) Following provisional disclosure, apart from the claim discussed in recital 168 above, the CNFPIA did not challenge the figures relating to profitability of the Union industry. The CNFPIA’s claim on the cause of the development of profitability is discussed in section 6 below.

(194) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA also claimed that the ability of the Union industry to invest significantly in their business operations constitutes a strong indication that they are not at all materially injured.

(195) The Commission disagrees with this claim. The Commission concluded in recital 280 of the provisional Regulation that investments during the period considered were modest and were limited by a decreasing ability to raise capital. This claim was therefore rejected.

(196) In the absence of further comments concerning profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital, recitals 275 to 280 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(197) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the Commission should give ‘special importance’ in the injury analysis to the most recent data available, that is, the data from the IP, and that the Commission has erred in its analysis for failing to do so. For this reason, CNFPIA claimed that the Commission’s analysis was subjective and unfair.

(198) The Commission disagrees with the claim. Although, the Commission agrees that the analysis of the data in the IP is essential to the analysis of injury, the Commission must assess in its appropriate context. Therefore, the Commission has followed its normal policy of performing a four-year trend analysis for most injury indicators. In drawing conclusions from this trend analysis, the Commission noted that most volume indicators (production and sales quantities, market shares and employment) followed an improving or stable trend from 2020 to 2022 and suffered a decline in 2023, while the performance indicators (profitability, cash flow and return on investments) started to deteriorate already in 2022. Therefore, the Commission’s analysis was thorough, took into account the development of each indicator and the developments in the IP were commented on specifically and in their appropriate context. The Commission therefore maintains its view that injury began in 2022 and worsened in the IP. The Commission has therefore rejected the claim.

(199) Following definitive disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the Commission’s determination of injury was neither based on positive evidence nor involved an objective examination of (a) the volume of imports of MWF from China and their effects on prices in the EU market for MWF; and (b) their impact on EU producers of MWF.

(200) The Commission has reviewed and rebutted all of the comments made by CNFPIA and therefore rejects the general point made that the Commission’s analysis was not objective or based on positive evidence.

(201) In the absence of further comments concerning the conclusions on injury, recitals 281 to 287 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(202) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA claimed that the Commission’s analysis of the causal link between Chinese imports and the injury of the Union’s industry was flawed. In particular, the CNFPIA argued that i) the Commission did not consider the decrease in import quantities as a decisive factor to dismiss the causal link between Chinese imports and the injury of the Union industry; ii) the Commission relied primarily on the alleged low prices of imports to reach its conclusions; iii) that the Commission was wrong in concluding that there was a coincidence in time between the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry and the significant presence of imports from China as the deterioration occurred at a time when imports from China were decreasing; and iv) that even if they coincided in time, this coincidence would not have been sufficient to establish causation as there were other factors that were causing the injury.

(203) The Commission disagreed with this claim.

(204) As regards point (i), Table 3 of the provisional Regulation showed imports from China and their market share. Although the quantity of imports in the IP fell, this was due to the fall in consumption. Therefore, the market share of imports is a more accurate indicator of the effect on the market. The market share of Chinese imports increased from 16,8 % in 2020 to 25,4 % in 2022, an increase of 51 %. However, in the IP, the market share of these imports fell to 22,5 % which still represented an increase of 34 % as compared to 2020. The slight fall in market share in the IP also has to be put into context of the development of their prices and impact on the Union industry as explained in the following recital. Furthermore, in view that the analysis made at section 8.3 of this Regulation, the fall in Chinese import quantities in the IP has not been maintained in 2024. Despite a further fall in consumption in 2024 of 5 %, import quantities have increased substantially.

(205) As regards point (ii), the Commission’s analysis took into account, not only the quantity of imports, but also the development of sales prices, the suppressive effect and undercutting of such imports and their market share. The Commission’s view that the dumped imports was a primary cause of injury was not therefore based only on price issues. Table 4 of the provisional Regulation showed that prices of Chinese imports in EUR/kg increased by 30 % from 2020 to 2022. However, these prices fell by 13 % in the IP. Prices in the IP were only 13 % higher than those in 2020. Further context is provided by Table 8 of the provisional Regulation which showed that the costs per unit of the Union industry rose throughout the analysis period by 42 %. In addition, Table 11 recorded that the Union industry’s profitability fell in 2022 and became negative in the IP. These facts demonstrate that the Chinese exporters exerted substantial price pressure on the Union industry because there is a clear link in terms of cause and effect, including a correlation in time, between the fall in profits of the Union industry and the Chinese prices in the Union at market shares which remained high in the IP.

(206) As regards point (iii) the Commission clearly established that injury began in 2022, a year when consumption was increasing. The Union industry suffered from price suppression in that year because the raw material cost increases could not be fully passed on to its customers due to the price effects of the dumped imports.

(207) As regards point (iv), the Commission does not contest that other factors played a role in the injury suffered by the Union industry in 2022 and 2023. These factors, including costs increases and the fall in consumption in 2023, were fully explained in the provisional Regulation. Nevertheless, the Commission maintains its conclusion that the dumped imports were a major cause of the injury in 2022 and 2023 and that other factors did not attenuate the causal link.

(208) Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(209) Following definitive disclosure, Amorim claimed that the Commission had provided a misleading interpretation of import volumes and market share, overstated conclusions about price effects and suppression and provided an incorrect timeline of injury versus imports behaviour.

(210) The comments made by Amorim in these respects provided no new facts but simply repeated arguments which were already rebutted in the definitive disclosure.

(211) In respect of the development of import volumes and market shares Amorim objects to the Commission’s analysis because Amorim believes the Commission should only consider the fall in Chinese import market shares in 2023, without looking into their overall context such as the significant fall in price in that year or by comparing market shares across the period considered. The Commission disagrees that the analysis of import volumes and market shares was misleading.

(212) In respect of price effects and suppression the Commission already at the stage of the provisional Regulation considered that the fall in consumption in 2023 and increases in cost had significant impact on the Union industry. However, the Commission maintains its view that the level of dumped imports from China at injurious prices was a genuine and substantial cause of the injury suffered in 2022 and 2023.

(213) Regarding the use of post IP data on Chinese imports, the Commission did not rely on such data at all in its provisional Regulation. However, the data was collected in order to assess the retroactive collection of duties and therefore was used in the definitive disclosure in order to respond to the comments of parties.

(214) In respect of ‘other’ injury factors no new issue was raised by Amorim except it alleges that intra-Union competition was a cause of injury. This issue was already rebutted earlier in this Regulation at recital 182.

(215) Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(216) CNFPIA also commented on the effects of Chinese imports on the situation of the Union industry. The first comment related to production, capacity and capacity utilisation. CNFPIA claimed that the evolution in Union consumption, the production quantity, sales quantity and market share of the Union industry and Chinese imports showed similar trends meaning that Chinese imports could not be considered injurious.

(217) However, this analysis ignores the impact of price effects and was therefore rejected.

(218) CNFPIA also commented that a year-by-year market share analysis of the Union industry also demonstrated a lack of injury as the Union industry market share increased in the IP.

(219) This development is factually correct, but conclusions drawn from this fact alone are flawed because they do not take into account price effects. Also, the Commission’s analysis at recital 257 and 286 of the provisional Regulation already took into account the fall in market share of the Chinese imports in the IP. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(220) CNFPIA also commented that the developments in employment and productivity do not show injury caused by Chinese imports.

(221) Recital 286 of the provisional Regulation already explained that the developments of these indicators were injurious when considered alongside other indicators and developments in Chinese imports. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(222) CNFPIA also commented that the developments in average Union industry sales prices, costs and profitability do not show injury caused by Chinese imports as Chinese imports fell in the IP.

(223) Recital 291 of the provisional Regulation already explained that the developments of these indicators were injurious because of the price effects (suppression) of the Chinese imports. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(224) CNFPIA also commented the developments in inventories in order to show that they do not show injury caused by Chinese imports.

(225) Recital 284 of the provisional Regulation already explained that the developments of this indicator was injurious when considered together with other factors. In addition, recital 274 of that Regulation explained why inventories are important in the MWF industry. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(226) CNFPIA also reiterated their comments that the alleged high level of investments made by the Union industry had caused the injury they suffered. However, no new arguments were presented here. In addition, no attempt was made to rebut the Commission’s comments at recital 280 of the provisional Regulation concerning the modest nature of these investments. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(227) Holz-Richter GmbH made comments on causation in a submission following the definitive disclosure. They claimed that their imports from China were made because of the alleged poor availability of the Union industry products. Holz-Richter supplied ‘sensitive’ data to support its claim that the measures were likely to disrupt its business due to the fact that it purchased a range of MWF products from China at a certain price which it sold on the Union market.

(228) The Commission has already dealt with the issue of an alleged shortage of supply at recitals 363 and 364 of the provisional Regulation. These recitals explain that there are many sources of supply of MWF and Chinese imports are expected to continue (at reduced quantities) as a result of these measures. Nevertheless, the aim of the measures is to restore fair competition on the Union market by raising Chinese import prices.