Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1717 of 5 August 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of decor paper 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 14 June 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of decor paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) 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 2 May 2024 by four Union producers of decor paper (‘the complainants’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of decor paper 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) 2024/2718 (‘the registration Regulation’) (3).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 16 January 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days.

(5) On 14 February 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of decor paper originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/291 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

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

(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 when 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 decor paper originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the complainants and Kingdecor.

(11) On 27 January 2025, the CNFPIA submitted comments in reaction to the complainants’ submission of 27 August 2024. However, the CNFPIA comments were submitted at a point when it was no longer feasible to incorporate them into the provisional stage of the process. Additionally, their comments concerned the complainants’ submission in reply to other interested parties’ submissions at initiation stage, and thus mostly covered aspects related to the complaint. Given the above factors, these comments were disregarded at provisional stage as these submissions would not have affected the findings and conclusions of the Commission at this stage.

(12) Concerning the CNFPIA claim that the complainants’ submission of 27 August 2024 should have been rejected by the Commission, as it was submitted beyond the 70-day deadline from the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation (5), the Commission highlighted that while the complainants’ comments were made available on the open file, they were not taken into account in the Commission rebuttals of the comments on initiation in the provisional regulation. In any event, neither the complainants’ submission of 27 August 2024, nor the CNFPIA submission of 27 January 2025, would have affected the findings and conclusions of the Commission at provisional stage, as both submissions concerned the findings of the complaint.

(13) The Commission thus maintained its conclusion in recitals (7) to (13) of the provisional Regulation.

(14) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions in recitals (14) to (19) of the provisional Regulation.

(15) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (20) to (23) of the provisional Regulation.

(16) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital (24) of the provisional Regulation.

(17) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital (25) to (30) of the provisional Regulation.

(18) Following provisional disclosure, the CNFPIA reiterated its comments that the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in this case was inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) and must not be applied, as the Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of significant distortions in the Chinese decor paper sector.

(19) As already stated in recital (37) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission recalled that, according to Article 2(6a)(a), third indent, of the basic Regulation, once the Commission found that significant distortions exist, domestic costs may be used but only to the extent that they are positively established not to be distorted, on the basis of accurate and appropriate evidence. Finally, with regard to the alleged inconsistent application of Article 2(6a) of the Basic Regulation in the present case and its incompatibility with the WTO ADA, the Commission referred for explanation to Sections 3.2.1.9 and 3.2.1.10 of the provisional Regulation.

(20) The Commission’s provisional findings in recital (41) of the provisional Regulation were therefore confirmed.

(21) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive new comments regarding the existence of significant distortions. Therefore, the provisional findings of recitals (142) to (144) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(22) Following provisional disclosure, Interprint GmbH commented regarding the selection of the representative country that production conditions, energy and raw material prices and wage structures in Thailand are not comparable to those in China. However, this claim was not substantiated with evidence.

(23) Therefore, the provisional findings in recital (157) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(24) Following provisional disclosure, Kingdecor argued that the Commission must use the cost of titanium dioxide (‘TiO2’) imported by Kingdecor as surrogate value for domestically purchased TiO2, given that the imported and domestically purchased products are the same and given that Kingdecor imported a significant share of its TiO2 from countries that are not subject to distortions.

(25) Kingdecor argued that it purchased domestic TiO2 with a purity above 90 %, and that the TiO2 they purchased from Chemours in Mexico and Kronos in Germany had a similar TiO2 content. Further, other characteristics of the imported TiO2 were comparable to that of the domestically purchased TiO2. As a result, the price of imported TiO2 is representative of that purchased on the domestic market.

(26) The complainants argued that it would be inappropriate to use prices at which Kingdecor imported TiO2, and that Kingdecor’s arguments were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and were misleading. Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation states that if it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence of significant distortions, the Commission must construct the normal value exclusively based on costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks.

(27) The complainants further argued that Kingdecor’s statement that the TiO2 imported from Taiwan, Mexico and Germany was ‘exactly the same as that sourced domestically’, was factually incorrect, as Kingdecor failed to account for two important characteristics of TiO2, namely whether the TiO2 was produced following the sulphate or chloride process and the molecule’s surface treatment. In addition, even ‘higher-quality’ TiO2 producers in China are still considered to be lower tier compared to the global producers in Taiwan, Mexico and Germany. Only TiO2 which has been treated in a specific manner has the specific characteristics which make it appropriate for use in decor paper applications. These grades are called laminate-grade TiO2.

(28) The complainants further argued that decor paper producers cannot freely switch between chloride and sulphate grade TiO2. Chloride-grade TiO2 typically has a more blueish color, whereas sulphate-grade TiO2 has more yellowish tones. The lack of substitutability between the two grades previously let the Commission to conclude that the market for chloride-based TiO2 for use in paper laminate constitutes a separate product market. Consequently, products produced in accordance with the sulphate process cannot be regarded as ‘exactly the same’ as products produced in accordance with the chloride process.

(29) Finally, the complainants argued, that even if Kingdecor were to exclusively use chloride-grade TiO2 – which the Union producers considered extremely unlikely – chloride-grade TiO2 sourced domestically in the PRC cannot be equated to the high-quality products imported from elsewhere. They provided market expert publications, which stated that global producers of high-quality products should be considered Tier-1 producers. It also considered that the products produced by these producers are ‘high-quality’. The laminate-grade TiO2 producers exporting from Taiwan, Germany and Mexico, i.e. Kronos and Chemours, were explicitly mentioned as being a part of this tier. In contrast, Chinese producers of ‘higher quality TiO2’ were only considered Tier-2 producers.

(30) From the outset the Commission noted that these claims contradict the findings made in recital (167) of the provisional Regulation that the company successfully claimed and supported with ample evidence verified on spot that it imported qualities of titanium dioxide that were unavailable in China. Therefore, in the absence of any new evidence or evidence verified on spot contradicting these findings, the Commission rejected the claim. Without prejudice to this conclusion, the Commission also addressed the claim on substance. As concluded in recitals 25, 51 and 57 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1923 of 10 July 2024 (6), the Commission considers that different types of TiO2 share the same basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics and are not considered different products. The corresponding finding was confirmed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/4 of 17 December 2024 (7).

(31) In addition, the Commission considered that, while Kingdecor provided evidence that the quality of domestically produced TiO2 increased in the last years and that several technical specifications were comparable between domestically sourced TiO2 and the TiO2 it imported, other parties presented evidence that market participants still consider quality differences to remain and continue to differentiate between Tier-1 producers and Tier-2 producers.

(32) The Commission therefore considered it accurate not to take the prices of Kingdecor’s imports as a benchmark, but to construct the normal value exclusively based on costs of production and sales reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks from the representative country.

(33) No other comment was received regarding raw materials. Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals (163) to (169) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(34) After final disclosure, Kingdecor reiterated that there are no quality differences between the TiO2 produced in the PRC and elsewhere, and that the product characteristics and production processes were nearly identical. In support of this claim they submitted further data in the form of laboratory analysis. Furthermore, Kingdecor maintained the argument that they mostly used TiO2 produced via the chloride-process instead of the sulfate-process which generates a lower quality, and indicated that they provided the relevant supporting documentation in their submission of 28 March 2025. Finally, Kingdecor argued that it is not logical to have a benchmark price for the lower quality domestic product which is higher than the price for the higher quality of imported TiO2.

(35) The Commission rejected this claim and referred to the recitals (30) to (32) above. The benchmark used reflected the corresponding cost in Thailand, which was considered the appropriate representative country. The fact that the benchmark price used for TiO2 was higher than the import prices of Kingdecor of an allegedly higher quality did not render this benchmark inaccurate. There can be many reasons for prices differences, not necessarily linked to quality issues. Hence, the Commission considered it accurate to construct the normal value exclusively based on costs of production and sales reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks from Thailand, and not to deviate from this methodology for one input material for the sole reason that Kingdecor imported TiO2 from other countries.

(36) After final disclosure, Kingdecor submitted that there is an asymmetry in the methodology of the Commission, when it accepts the actual domestic transportation costs on the side of the exports, but on the side of the raw materials domestic transportation it recalculated the amounts reported by the producers.

(37) The Commission considered that the requirements of Article 2(6a) were met, and that the normal value was constructed on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks. The calculation of the export price back to ex-works level is a different matter, not covered by the provisions of this Article. Thus, the claim was dismissed.

(38) No comments were received regarding the other factors of production (labour, electricity and steam). Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals (170) to (172) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(39) Following provisional disclosure, Kingdecor argued that the SG&A benchmarks used by the Commission would contain direct selling expenses and that for a fair comparison between the export price and the constructed normal value, the Commission must ensure that direct selling expenses were deducted from the constructed normal value. Kingdecor pointed to the annual financial statements of one Thai company included in the Orbis sourced benchmark, and to the webpage of a second company, which indicated that the companies offer transport.

(40) In response to Kingdecor’s comments, the complainants argued that the SG&A benchmarks in the normal value construction for Kingdecor did not require adjustment as Kingdecor has not met its burden of proof. The complainants argue that while Kingdecor cites certain passages from the Thai producers’ websites and internal documents in support of its claim for adjustment, those references, however, do not prove that direct expenses are included under the ‘other operating expenses’ of several of those Thai producers. Captures provided by Kingdecor from the websites of Siam Kraft Industry and Thai Containers Group, only show ‘services’, which do not prove these costs are incurred for conveying the product concerned from the exporter’s premises to an independent buyer, nor prove that such costs are included under ‘other operating expenses’. The excerpt from SIG Combibloc cited by Kingdecor relates to the environmental reporting, and more specifically to the scope-3 emissions. These emissions stem from activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organisation but which affect its value chain in an indirect manner. The context of the environmental reporting is significantly different from the financial reporting which is relevant for the normal value construction. The excerpt can therefore not be accepted as proof that the ‘other operating expenses’ also include direct selling expenses.

(41) The Commission rejected the argument that the SG&A benchmarks would contain direct sales cost in the form of transport costs. Kingdecor did not provide sufficient evidence that sales and transport costs were indeed contained in the Orbis-benchmark data used, nor provided it any quantification for such claim.

(42) The Commission noted that no further breakdown was readily available for the SG&A costs of the companies in question taken from the database. The Commission also noted that, in its judgement in ‘CCCME’ (8), 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 (9). 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 (10).

(43) 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 (11). 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 information available showing that the SG&A costs of the companies in question included the expenses at issue. Consequently, in view if the Commission’s discretion in the application of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation (12), 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.

(44) Therefore, the provisional findings and conclusions in recitals (173) to (176) of the provisional Regulation concerning the undistorted and reasonable amount for manufacturing overheads, SG&A costs and profit, established on the basis of the financial data of four Thai companies were confirmed.