Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1456 of 17 July 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of fused alumina 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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 21 November 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of fused alumina originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 9 October 2024 by Imerys S.A. (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of fused alumina 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) 2025/260 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, the known exporting producers, the authorities of the PRC, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

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

(6) A related importer, Reckel GmbH (‘Reckel’), contested the appropriateness of Mexico, which was used in the complaint as a representative country, asserting that it lacks sufficient competitive production of the investigated products and appropriate production conditions similar to those in China. They suggest Brazil as a more suitable alternative, given its more comparable raw material conditions to China’s.

(7) A Union user, RHI Magnesita GmbH, commented on the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation, criticizing the selection of Mexico as the benchmark country for determining the normal value of fused alumina. They argued that Mexico lacks sufficient competitive production with only two producers indicating a non-competitive market. Additionally, they pointed out that Mexico does not share similar raw material conditions with China, which has significant mineral reserves, suggesting that Brazil would be a more suitable alternative due to its comparable production conditions.

(8) The Union users association, Verband Deutscher Schleifmittelwerke e.V. (‘VDS’), commented on the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation, objecting to the selection of Mexico as a representative third country for determining the normal value of fused alumina. VDS argued that Mexico is inappropriate for this role because it lacks significant production of the product under investigation, with only a small presence of producers using different grades and more expensive raw materials. They expressed concerns that this choice would lead to distorted results and emphasized the importance of ensuring that dumping and injury calculations are based on an objective, fair basis. VDS suggested using India instead as the representative third country, pointing out that India has a more relevant production landscape and more appropriate cost structures comparable to those in China, ensuring more accurate and reliable calculations.

(9) A Union user, Wester Mineralien GmbH (‘Wester’), argued that the complaint does not convincingly demonstrate that dumping is taking place, as the choice of Mexico as a representative country for calculating normal value is inappropriate. Wester highlighted that the methodology used, based on the constructed normal value from Mexican data, fails to accurately reflect the situation because Mexico lacks a substantial and competitive production base for fused alumina. Therefore, they advocated for the termination of the anti-dumping proceedings.

(10) At the initiation stage of the investigation, Mexico was considered a potential representative country as it was deemed to have production of the product under investigation. However, it is important to acknowledge that the initial consideration was just the beginning of a thorough investigative process. As the investigation progressed, the Commission's choice of a representative country was refined and evaluated against specific criteria pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. These criteria, which include the availability and quality of data and the economic environment's comparability to that of China, were meticulously applied to ensure a fair and accurate determination of the normal value. This process and the rationale behind the final selection are explained in depth in Section 3.2.2, highlighting the Commission's commitment to maintaining transparency and methodological rigor throughout the investigation.

(11) Some parties provided comments on the product control number (‘PCN’) construction regarding certain technical issues and missing characteristics. Some users claimed that the distinction between first and second grade brown fused alumina reflected in the PCN is unnecessary because it is connected to the contents of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3), which are already taken into account separately. The Commission took note of all the technical comments submitted. The investigation established that the distinction between first and second quality brown fused alumina in the PCN is artificial, does not reflect industry-recognised standards and is subject to interpretation. Thus, an adjustment in the PCN was necessary regarding brown fused alumina. The Commission considered that when comparing products, the critical elements are the contents of Al2O3 and Fe2O3, which are reflected in values A1/A2 and F1/F2 within the PCN. PCNs B2GA2F1 and B1GA2F1 were thus compared to establish the injury margin, as detailed in Section 6.1. Regarding the additional technical characteristics proposed for inclusion, the Commission noted that the existing PCN structure sufficiently captured all relevant characteristics for the purposes of the investigation.

(12) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(13) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of representativity in terms of size of the production and sales quantity of the product under investigation from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 and geographic location. This sample consisted of two Union producers located in two different Member States. The sampled Union producers, based on the information available at that stage, accounted for almost 50 % of the estimated total production and more than 40 % of estimated total Union sales volume of the like product in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.

(14) Due to the absence of a questionnaire reply from one of the sampled companies, MOTIM Electrocorundum Ltd. (Hungary), the Commission proposed to replace the company by another Union producer, Alteo Fused Alumina (France), which also expressed its interest in participating in the sample. Based on the information available at that stage, the sample accounted for more than 44 % of the estimated total Union production and more than 38 % of estimated total Union sales quantity of the like product, and it also ensured a good geographical spread.

(15) The sample was confirmed and is representative of the Union industry.

(16) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(17) Ten unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two unrelated importers on the basis of the largest volume of imports and sales of the product concerned in the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known importers concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample.

(18) One Union user, Tyrolit, one Union users association, VDS, and one related importer, Reckel, commented on the sample of unrelated importers indicating that only traders of raw materials and not manufacturers who process the raw materials have been sampled. Additionally, both parties argued that the sampled importers mainly focus on the imports of commodities, such as brown and white fused alumina (‘BFA’ and ‘WFA’), with limited involvement in the import of speciality grades. Therefore, they argued that the sample was not representative. The Commission noted that several parties participating in the sampling exercise were more accurately classified as users rather than unrelated importers. The Commission clarified that any company, regardless of whether it is purchasing directly from the country concerned or through a supplier or trader, is considered a ‘Union user’ if it subsequently incorporates the product under investigation into its own production process. The inclusion of direct users in the sampling exercise of importers does not serve the purpose of investigating importers. Instead, the interests of users are assessed separately. Concerning the claim on the speciality grades, the Commission noted that all types of fused alumina share similar basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics. As the two sampled importers represented more than 63 % of the volume of imports of the product under investigation from China and 71 % of the imports of the product under investigation from all origins, based on the submissions of the parties participating in the sampling exercise, the Commission confirmed the sample selected on 17 December 2024.

(19) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(20) Twenty-two exporting producers in the country concerned representing 16,7 % of the total export volume of fused alumina from China to the Union provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a provisional sample of three exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. The comments received are summarized and addressed below.

(21) Dengfeng Wudu Abrasives Co. Ltd. (‘Wudu’), a company selected in the provisional sample, resubmitted the data pertaining to its exports of the product under investigation to the Union and reported lower export volumes. The Commission requested additional information from Dengfeng Wudu Abrasives Co. Ltd. to be considered as a cooperating exporting producer in this proceeding. However, Dengfeng Wudu Abrasives Co. Ltd. did not provide the requested information within the deadline set.

(22) In view of the updated lower export volume reported by Wudu and in the absence of reply to the Commission’s request for additional information, the Commission considered that this company was no longer cooperating with the investigation and therefore was no longer part of the sample or a cooperating exporting producer.

(23) Shanxi Lvliangshan Minerals Co. Ltd (‘Lvliangshan’) claimed that the provisional sample of three exporting producers was not representative as it represented only 6,2 % of the total export volume of fused alumina from China to the Union. Furthermore, it submitted that the sampled exporters must be genuine exporting producers capable of providing reliable data on production costs and export sales. Shanxi Lvliangshan Minerals Co., Ltd proposed that the sample selection be based on the largest production volume.

(24) Art Abrasives (Guizhou) Co., Ltd. requested to be included in the final sample as it is the sole producer in the PRC utilising both alumina and bauxite as raw materials to manufacture semi-friable fused alumina while relying on a comprehensive series of advanced treatments for this product type.

(25) Tyrolit claimed that additional factors such as quality levels of the product concerned and the treatment specifications should also be considered to select the sample. Tyrolit and VDS also requested the inclusion of at least one additional exporting producer to increase the representativeness of the sample. Alternatively, Tyrolit considered that the investigation should be limited to commodities (in particular brown and white fused alumina), which allegedly account for 75-80 % of the total volume of fused alumina.

(26) With regard to the representativity of the sample and request for addition of exporting producer(s), the Commission considered that the overall low level of cooperation by Chinese exporting producers, the fragmentation of the Chinese domestic industry and the relative size of the companies that came forward did not warrant the inclusion of an additional exporting producer to the sample and that the selected sample was sufficiently representative as it accounted for 6,1 % of total imports. When it comes to the claims relating to quality aspects and the use of different production processes or raw materials, the Commission recalled that these are not legal criteria in the sample selection under Article 17 of the basic Regulation. The Commission also considered that a sample based on the export volume to the EU was more representative than when based on the production volume given that the investigation is focussed on the exporting practices of the Chinese operators. Furthermore, Lvliangshan did not provide evidence that the provisionally sampled companies were not genuine exporting producers. In parallel, the Commission also considered that the current investigation was initiated following a complaint which scope is not limited to fused alumina commodities. On this basis, the claims related to these issues were rejected.

(27) Furthermore, it appeared that the use of alumina and bauxite by Art Abrasives (Guizhou) Co. related to one product type only (semi-friable alumina) whereas it manufactures a much wider range of product types falling within the scope of this investigation. In addition, such claim was not confirmed by the ‘Information on inputs’ submitted by this party, which contained contradictory information. Furthermore, adding a company that has ‘unique’ manufacturing techniques would not make the sample more representative of the Chinese operators as a whole, to the contrary. On this basis, the above claims were rejected.

(28) Based on the above, following the comments received on the selection of the sample, and due to the non-cooperation by Wudu as explained in recital 21, the Commission decided to limit the definitive sample to two exporting producers. On this new basis, the definitive sample accounts for 4,5 % of total imports of the product concerned and 26,6 % of the imports of the product concerned in the Union as reported by the cooperating exporting producers.

(29) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(30) Furthermore, the complaint contained sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in the PRC regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2) and 7(2a) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the Government of the PRC.

(31) The Commission published online (4) the questionnaires for the exporting producers, users, unrelated importers and the Union producers.

(33) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(34) The product under investigation is artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined, also known as fused alumina (‘the product under investigation’).

(35) The types of artificial corundum are also known as white fused alumina (‘WFA’), pink fused alumina, ruby fused alumina, brown fused alumina (‘BFA’), sol-gel, etc. They are all included, regardless of their commercial naming, provided they meet the properties or specifications set out in the relevant TARIC codes descriptions.

(36) Fused alumina is produced by melting bauxite or aluminium oxide at very high temperatures (around 2 000 °C) in an electric arc furnace, and then cooling and crushing the resulting material.

(37) Due to its hardness and thermal resistance, fused alumina is primarily used in two industrial sectors, abrasives and refractories. In the abrasives industry, it is used in a wide range of applications, including grinding, polishing, cutting and blasting. In the refractories industry, it functions as a refractory material in high-temperature settings, such as furnace linings, crucibles, and refractory bricks. Beyond these principal uses, fused alumina is also used in the manufacture of technical ceramics and as a wear-resistant additive in surface coatings within the laminated products industry.

(38) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the PRC, currently falling under CN code 2818 10 11 , 2818 10 19 , ex 2818 10 91 , and 2818 10 99 (TARIC codes 2818 10 91 20, 2818 10 91 90) (‘the product concerned’).