Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1508 of 24 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 214/2013 (2), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’, ‘the PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2013 (3), the Council imposed, in parallel, countervailing duties on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in China. The countervailing duties currently in force range from 13,7 % to 44,7 %.

(3) Following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, on 2 May 2019, the Commission extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the PRC by Regulation (EU) No 2019/687 (4) (the ‘previous expiry review’).The anti-dumping duties currently in force range from 0 % to 26,1 %.

(4) The level of the combined anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties ranges from 13,7 % to 58,3 %.

(5) Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force (5), the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (‘the request’).

(6) The request was submitted on 2 February 2024 by the European Steel Association (‘EUROFER’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of organic coated steel products in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(7) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 30 April 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (6) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

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

(9) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, the known Union producers, the known unrelated importers in the Union, unrelated users in the Union known to be concerned, the known producers in the PRC and the authorities of the PRC, about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

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

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

(12) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.

(13) Prior to the initiation, 14 Union producers had provided the information requested for the selection of the sample and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the Commission. On that basis, the Commission had provisionally selected a sample of three producers, which were found to be representative of the Union industry in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union. The sampled Union producers accounted for 28 % of the estimated total production of the Union industry and for 26 % of the total sales volume of the Union industry to unrelated customers in the Union during the review investigation period.

(14) The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received, and the provisional sample was confirmed. The sample was considered representative for the Union industry.

(15) The request to initiate the expiry review identified ten unrelated importers which were invited to provide sampling information. None of them came forward.

(16) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in the 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 the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(17) No exporting producers returned the sampling form. Subsequently, on 2 August 2024, the Commission informed the Government of China (‘GOC’) that there was no cooperation by exporting producers in the PRC and thus it would apply the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation with regard to the findings of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

(18) 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 GOC. The Commission, however, did not receive a questionnaire reply from the GOC on this matter. Therefore, on 2 August 2024 the Commission informed the GOC of its intention to apply the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation with regard to existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation.

(19) The Commission sent questionnaires to the three sampled Union producers and Eurofer. Questionnaires for the Union producers, unrelated importers, users, and the exporting producers in the PRC were also made available online (7) on the day of initiation of the investigation.

(20) Replies to the questionnaires were received from the three sampled Union producers and Eurofer.

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

(23) No parties made any comments on the final disclosure. No parties requested a hearing.

(24) The product under review is the same as in in the original investigation and previous expiry review namely certain organic coated steel products (‘OCS’) i.e. flat-rolled products of non-alloy and alloy steel (not including stainless steel) which are painted, varnished or coated with plastics on at least one side, excluding so-called ‘sandwich panels’ of a kind used for building applications and consisting of two outer metal sheets with a stabilizing core of insulation material sandwiched between them, excluding those products with a final coating of zinc-dust (a zinc-rich paint, containing by weight 70 % or more of zinc), and excluding those products with a substrate with a metallic coating of chromium or tin, currently falling under CN codes ex 7210 70 80 , ex 7212 40 80 , ex 7225 99 00 , and ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes 7210 70 80 11, 7210 70 80 91, 7212 40 80 01, 7212 40 80 21, 7212 40 80 82, 7225 99 00 11, 7225 99 00 91, 7226 99 70 11 and 7226 99 70 91; ‘the product under review’ or ‘OCS’).

(25) The product under review is obtained by applying an organic coating to flat-rolled steel products. The organic coating provides protection, and aesthetic and functional properties to steel products.

(26) OCS is mainly used in the construction sector and for further processing in products used in construction. Other applications include home appliances.

(27) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product concerned’).

(29) During the review investigation period, imports of OCS from the PRC virtually disappeared. According to Eurostat, imports of OCS from the PRC accounted for about 0,06 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 13,6 % market share during the original investigation and 0,1 % during the previous expiry review. In absolute terms the imports dropped from 702 452 tonnes in the original investigation to 6 338 tonnes in the previous expiry review and further to 2 554 tonnes in the review investigation period of this expiry review. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the imports in the review investigation period were not sufficiently representative to make valid conclusions concerning the continuation of dumping.

(30) Thus, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, relationship between prices in the Union and the PRC; relationship between export prices to third countries and normal value in the PRC; relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union; and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(31) As mentioned in recital (17), none of the exporters/producers from the PRC cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to the PRC. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(32) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the continuation of or the likelihood of recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular trade statistics collected by the Eurostat (8) and the Global Trade Atlas (9), information on freight cost from the International Transport and Insurance Costs of Merchandise Trade (10) data by OECD and the Doing Business (11) report by the World Bank, information on the factors of production and their consumption from a representative Union producer, information on the development of the Chinese market for OCS from the MySteel Annual Report (12).

(33) To analyse the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, in particular for the purpose of price comparisons, the Commission first determined the normal value as detailed in section 3.2 below.

(34) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(35) In order to obtain information, it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2. of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, on 2 August 2024, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.

(36) In point 5.3.2. of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, Mexico was an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(37) On 19 March 2025, the Commission informed the interested parties by a note on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value (‘the Note’). In that Note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of OCS. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Mexico as an appropriate representative country. The Commission received comments on the Note from the applicant. The applicant expressed its support to the Commissions choice of a representative country.

(38) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(39) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’, and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’ (hereinafter ‘administrative, selling and general costs’ is referred to as ‘SG&A’).

(40) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the exporting producers, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(41) The Commission examined the evidence on the file to decide whether significant distortions within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation exist in the PRC, rendering the use of domestic prices and costs in that country inappropriate. That analysis covered the following evidentiary elements on the various criteria relevant to establish the existence of significant distortions.

(42) First, the evidence contained in the request included the following elements pointing to the existence of significant distortions.

(43) The applicant argued that the Chinese market of the product under review is served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control, or policy supervision or guidance of the Chinese authorities. In this regard, the applicant highlighted the existence of significant state ownership within the Chinese steel sector, particularly among large OCS producers such as the Baowu Group, the Ansteel Group and the Shandong Steel Group, all of which are State Owned Enterprises (‘SOEs’).

(44) The applicant also argued that the Chinese State presence in OCS producers allows the State to interfere with prices and costs. The applicant submitted that this is the case for both SOEs and private companies. In fact, the applicant noted the constitutional obligation, according to Article 33 of the PRC Constitution, that ‘[p]rimary-level Party organisations in non-public sector entities shall implement the Party’s principles and policies, guide and oversee their enterprises’ observance of state laws and regulations’. Moreover, Article 19 of the PRC Company law highlights the duty for companies ‘to provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the Party’ and the requirement to designate within the company, ‘an organisation of the Communist Party of China […] to carry out the activities of the Party’.

(45) Regarding OCS producers specifically, the request noted the encouragement of President Xi Jinping addressed to the Baowu Steel Group, to continue collaborating with the state-owned economy (13). Additionally, it remarked the statement of the chairman of the China Society for Metals, who ‘reviewed the relevant important instructions of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China’ in particular with regard to the need ‘to implement comprehensive policies in terms of optimizing industrial structure, controlling capacity expansion, promoting industrial concentration, improving quality and efficiency’ (14). Finally, considering that OCS is mainly used in construction, the applicant pointed out the importance given to construction in rural and urban places within the China’s 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development.

(46) Furthermore, the applicant indicated that the Chinese authorities maintain public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces. In this regard, the applicant noted that the steel sector in China is subject to numerous national and municipal plans, in particular regarding the optimization and restructuring of the steel industry and the modernization on the level of the supply chain. Besides, the China Iron and Steel Association, pursuant to Article 3 of its Articles of Association, ‘adheres to the overall leadership of the Communist Party of China’ and ‘accepts the business guidance, supervision and management by the entities in charge of registration and management, by entities in charge of party building, as well as by the relevant administrative departments in charge of industry management’.

(47) The applicant also underlined the lack, discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy, corporate or property laws. This is, according to the applicant, apparent from the influence of the GOC in insolvency proceedings. Given the subordination of the courts to the GOC, many insolvent firms benefit from restructuring plans stemming from de facto governmental guarantees to SOEs. In addition, the applicant referred to lack of transparency of rules on land provision and acquisition.