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

• (155) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales.

• (156) During the period considered the Union industry was profitable in 2021 and 2022. Overall, the construction sector performed well during the Covid-19 pandemics in 2020 and the aftermath in 2021 and 2022. Low interest rates, short lockdowns in construction section, increased investments and works on property renovations stimulated demand for construction products. As a result, the Union industry managed to increase its sales and production volume as well as sales prices and reached significant profit margins, all in the years following the imposition of the original measures. However, after consumption had started to slow down in 2022 and that fall continued in 2023, the Union industry’s profitability became negative, and the Union industry incurred a significant loss of 5,7 % in the review investigation period.

• (157) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash followed the development of the overall profitability of the Union industry.

• (158) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. During the period considered the Union industry, highly capital-intensive, made regular investments for the optimisation, and upgrading of the existing production machinery. In addition, significant investments were made in order to comply with legal requirements for energy-efficiency, environment protection and increased work safety. Depending on the company, there were investments aimed at costs reduction, energy optimisation and/or also at revamping facilities that had been negatively affected by the lower capacity utilisation observed during the original investigation period.

• (159) The return on investments during the period considered followed closely the profitability trend. Since the imposition of measures the ability to raise capital has improved.

4.6.   Conclusion on injury

• (160) The investigation found that the Union industry as a whole showed recovery from past dumping during 2021 and 2022. This recovery, however, was due to exceptional circumstances, in particular the boom in the construction sector caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Once the market situation went back to normal, there was a reverse of this recovery.

• (161) This is particularly evident in the Union industry’s profitability, as, given its inability to increase prices in line with rising costs, the Union industry went into losses in the review investigation period. The injury is also visible in other important indicators, such as a significant loss of production and sales volumes and also of market share.

• (162) Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.

5. CAUSATION

• (163) During the period considered, the Union industry lost significant sales volumes on the Union market, as its Union sales decreased by 15 %. As consumption dropped by 8 %, the Union industry’s market share also decreased significantly, by 6,1 percentage points from 89,6 % to 83,5 %.

• (164) Chinese imports did not play a role in the Union industry’s injury. As indicated at recital (129), the level of imports from China was negligible throughout the period considered. Imports from other countries did play a role: they held a market share of 10,3 % in 2020 and in the review investigation period, their share of the Union market had increased to 16,5 %. Moreover, prices from the two most important sources of imports which each had a market share of around 5 % in the review investigation period, India and the Republic of Korea, dragged down prices of the Union industry. Their low prices made it impossible for the Union industry to reflect their full cost of production in its sales prices in the review investigation period.

• (165) The Union industry had been confronted with a strong increase in prices of energy and key input materials following the start of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The Union industry could initially cope with that, taking advantage of the booming construction market in the post-Covid-19 pandemic years 2021 and 2022 and therefore reflect these costs in its selling prices. However, in 2023 this was not anymore possible.

• (166) The Commission therefore concluded that Chinese imports did not contribute to the material injury to the Union industry, but that other factors, in particular the increase in cost of production, the drop in consumption and the increase of imports from other countries, in particular India and the Republic of Korea, caused that injury.

• (167) Therefore, the Commission decided to further assess, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures against such imports were allowed to lapse.

6. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY

• (168) The Commission assessed the following elements: the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC; the attractiveness of the Union market and export prices to third country markets; possible absorption capacity of third country markets; likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures and their impact on the Union industry.

6.1.   Production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC

• (169) As set out in recitals (90)-(94), there is a substantial production capacity and spare capacity in China which would allow a rapid increase of exports to the Union market in the event that the anti-dumping measures are allowed to expire. The production capacity in China amounted to 55 million tonnes in the review investigation period. As the capacity utilisation rate was 50 %, the spare capacity alone equals 6-7 times Union consumption.

6.2.   Attractiveness of the Union market and export prices to third country markets

• (170) As set out in recitals (106)-(114), the Union market is an attractive market both in size and in terms of prices. In 2023, with a free market of 4,2 million tonnes, the Union market is one of the largest markets world-wide. Moreover, prices on the Union market are significantly higher than domestic Chinese prices of OCS and Chinese export prices to China’s current major export markets.

6.3.   Possible absorption capacity of third country markets

• (171) As set out in recital (112), anti-dumping measures against Chinese OCS imports are in place in six important third country markets. This makes these markets less attractive for Chinese exporting producers and is an additional element which supports the finding that PRC’s current production capacity would most likely be used to serve the Union market, should the measures be repealed.

6.4.   Likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures, and their impact on the Union industry

• (172) As explained in recitals (110)-(111), Chinese prices on their main export market are significantly below the Union industry sales prices in the review investigation period. There is a likelihood that the Chinese OCS producers would adopt a comparable pricing behaviour when exporting to the Union should the original measures elapse. In the absence of continuation of the anti-dumping measures, such prices will severely undercut the Union industry prices and result in price suppression caused by Chinese imports.

6.5.   Conclusion

• (173) In view of the above, it is concluded that the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from China at injurious prices, and therefore further aggravate the injurious situation of the Union industry.

7. UNION INTEREST

• (174) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (175) The investigation showed that should the measures expire, this would likely have a significant negative effect on the Union industry. The Union industry’s situation would quickly deteriorate further in terms of falling sales volumes and prices resulting in rising losses. The continuation of measures would allow the Union industry to further exploiting its potential on a Union market that is a level-playing field.

• (176) Therefore, maintaining the anti-dumping measures in force is in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers

• (177) As mentioned in recital (15) above, ten known importers were contacted in this investigation and invited to cooperate. None came forward or cooperated in any way in the investigation.

• (178) It is recalled that in the original investigation it was found that, given the importers’ profits and sources of supply, any negative impact of the imposition of measures on importers, if any, would not be disproportionate.

• (179) In the current investigation there is no evidence on file suggesting the opposite, and it can thus accordingly be confirmed that the measures currently in force had no substantial negative effect on the financial situation of importers and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect them.

7.3.   Interest of users

• (180) 59 known users were contacted in this investigation and invited to cooperate. No user came forward or cooperated in any way in the investigation.

• (181) It is recalled that in the original investigation ten users submitted questionnaire replies. At that time, it was found that, given the users’ profits and sources of supply, the impact of the imposition of measures on users, if any, would not be disproportionate.

• (182) In the current investigation there is no evidence on file suggesting that the measures in force affected them in any negative way. In fact, the applicant submitted evidence that key users experienced improvements in profitability during the period under review. According to the request, the measures in place do not have a sizeable impact on users and consumers as OCS represents a negligible part of the cost of downstream products (for example EUR 0,42 of the cost of producing a washing machine or 0,4 % of the investment of an empty factory building).

• (183) On that basis it is confirmed that the measures currently in force had no substantial negative effect on the financial situation of users and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect them.

7.4.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (184) Therefore, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union interest against the maintenance of the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of organic coated steel originating in China.

8. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (185) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on recurrence of dumping, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on organic coated steel from China should be maintained.

• (186) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China’.

• (187) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (188) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (189) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in China and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the organic coated steel produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s Republic China’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

• (190) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission ⁵⁵. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (191) All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received.

• (192) An exporter or producer that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty currently applicable to its exports may request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request, provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the period that was used to set the level of the duty applicable to its exports; (ii) it is not related to a company that did so and thus is subject to the anti-dumping duties; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

• (193) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁵⁶ when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

• (194) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

• (a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in China during the period between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2011 (‘original investigation period’);

• (b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, and which have or could have cooperated in the investigation that led to the duty; and

• (c) it has either actually exported the product under review originating in China or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1508/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)