Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1724 of 8 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People`s Republic of China and India

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 20 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of barium carbonate originating in the People`s Republic of China and India (‘the countries 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 (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 5 November 2024 by Kandelium Group GmbH (‘the complainant’ or ‘Kandelium’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of barium carbonate 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) 2025/482 (2) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, the known exporting producers and the Chinese and Indian authorities, 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) No comments were received on initiation.

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

Sampling of Union producers

(8) Since there is only one known Union producer, Kandelium Group GmbH, representing 100 % of the Union production, no sampling was necessary.

Sampling of unrelated importers

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

(10) Seven companies provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample, however, three of these companies were not unrelated importers but users of the product under investigation and one of them was both an importer and a user. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of three unrelated importers on the basis of the volume of imports during the investigation period and the resale on the Union market. However, one of the three sampled importers did not provide a reply to the importers’ questionnaire, within the established deadlines.

Sampling of exporting producers in the People`s Republic of China

(11) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in People`s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘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.

(12) Three exporting producers in China 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 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 Mission of the People’s Republic of China were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received on the sample.

Sampling of exporting producers in India

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

(14) There was only one exporting producer in India known to the Commission at the initiation of the investigation. The exporting producer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. No further exporting producers came forward. Therefore, the Commission deemed it was not necessary to select a sample and proposed the sole exporting producer to be investigated. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the known exporting producer concerned, and the authorities of the country concerned, were consulted on this decision. No comments were received.

(15) 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’).

(16) Furthermore, the complainant provided in the complaint sufficient evidence that there may be raw material distortions in the People’s Republic of China regarding the product under investigation. According to the evidence in the complaint one of the raw materials for the production of product under investigation, carbon dioxide, accounting for at least 17 % of the cost of production of the product under investigation, is subject to export VAT. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered also raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Articles 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to China. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the GOC.

(17) The questionnaires for exporting producers, Union producer, unrelated importers, and users were made available online (3) on the day of initiation of the investigation.

(19) 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’).

(20) The product under investigation is barium carbonate with a strontium content of more than 0,07 % by weight and a sulphur content of more than 0,0015 % by weight, whether in powder, pressed granular or calcined granular form, currently falling under CN code ex 2836 60 00 (TARIC code 2836 60 00 10) (‘the product under investigation’).

(21) Barium carbonate is an inorganic compound with a chemical formula BaCO3 used in a wide range of applications, for example in the glass and ceramic industry. In the glass production process, barium carbonate improves the glass optical property, making it more brilliant. In the ceramic industry, barium carbonate leads to smoother and more consistent glaze surfaces.

(22) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in China and India currently falling under CN code ex 2836 60 00 (TARIC code 2836 60 00 10) (‘the product concerned’).

(24) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(25) No comments were received on the product scope.

(26) In view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC, the Commission considered it appropriate to initiate the investigation with regard to the exporting producers from this country having regard to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(27) Consequently, in order to collect the necessary data for the eventual application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission invited all exporting producers in the PRC to provide information regarding the inputs used for producing barium carbonate. Two exporting producers submitted the relevant information.

(28) 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. Subsequently, 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.

(29) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it may need to select 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, referring to Türkiye as a possible appropriate representative third country.

(30) On 11 April 2025, the Commission informed by a note (‘the First Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. 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 the product concerned. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified possible representative countries, namely Türkiye and Mexico. The Commission received comments on the First Note from the exporting producers Redstar and Chutian and from the complainant. These comments have been duly addressed in the Second Note

(31) On 15 May 2025, the Commission informed by a second note (‘the Second Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Türkiye as the representative country. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs ('SG&A') and profits based on available information for the companies Türkiye şişe ve cam fabrikalari A.Ş (‘Sisecam’) and Alkim Alkali Kimya A.Ş. (‘Alkim’), producers in Türkiye.

(32) The Commission received comments on the Second Note from the exporting producers Redstar and Chutian and from the complainant. These comments have been addressed under respective heading under Section 3.1.4 below.

(33) After having analysed the comments and information received, the Commission concluded that Türkiye was an appropriate representative country from which undistorted prices and costs would be sourced for the determination of the normal value. The underlying reasons for that choice are further described in detail in Section 3.1.3 below.

(34) 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’.

(35) 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’ (‘administrative, selling and general costs’ is referred to hereinafter as ‘SG&A’).

(36) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(37) In recent investigations concerning the chemical sector in the PRC (4), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.

(38) In those investigations, the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles (5). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the chemical sector not only does a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persist in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), first indent of the basic Regulation (6), but the GOC is also in a position to interfere with prices and costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation (7). The Commission further found that the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials and inputs have an additional distorting effect on the market. Indeed, overall, the system of planning in the PRC results in resources being concentrated in sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the GOC, rather than being allocated in line with market forces (8). Moreover, the Commission concluded that the Chinese bankruptcy and property laws do not work properly in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fourth indent of the basic Regulation, thus generating distortions in particular when maintaining insolvent firms afloat and when allocating land use rights in the PRC (9). In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the chemical sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation (10), as well as distortions in the financial markets in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), sixth indent of the basic Regulation, in particular concerning access to capital for corporate actors in the PRC (11).

(39) Like in previous investigations concerning the chemical sector in the PRC, the Commission examined in the present investigation whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission did so on the basis of the evidence available on the file, including the evidence contained in the complaint, and in the Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations (12) (‘Report’), which relies on publicly available sources. That analysis covered the examination of the substantial government interventions in the PRC’s economy in general, but also the specific market situation in the relevant sector including the product under investigation. The Commission further supplemented these evidentiary elements with its own research on the various criteria relevant to confirm the existence of significant distortions in the PRC as also found by its previous investigations in this respect.

(40) The complaint alleged that significant distortions exist in the Chinese barium carbonate sector. It referred to the Report and in particular to the PRC’s economic system being a ‘socialist market economy’ and the active role of the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP’) in both the public and private sectors in the PRC.

(42) In conclusion, the complaint took the position that prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. On that basis, according to the complaint, it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case.

(43) The Commission examined whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and costs in China, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. That analysis covered the examination of the substantial government interventions in China’s economy in general, but also the specific market situation in the relevant sector including the product concerned.

(44) In this regard, the Commission first assessed whether the barium carbonate sector in the PRC is being served to a significant extent by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the Chinese authorities, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. The sector of the product concerned is served by both private companies, such as Guizhou Hongtai Barium Industry Co., Ltd. (22), Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Co., Ltd. (23) or Zaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co., Ltd. (24), and by SOEs such as Sinochem Group (25). The exact ratio of private versus State-owned producers in the barium carbonate market could not be determined. However, the Commission found that at least one producer is directly controlled by the State, namely Redstar (26), which is effectively controlled by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of Qingdao Municipal People’s Government (27) through the State-owned holding company Qingdao Redstar Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (28). Furthermore, Sinochem Group (29) is a central enterprise controlled by the State Council’s State Asset Supervision and Administration Commission (‘SASAC’) (30) and acts as a trader in barium carbonate (31).

(45) Moreover, CCP interventions into operational decision-making have become the norm, not only in SOEs but also in private companies (32), with the CCP claiming leadership over virtually every aspect of the country’s economy. Indeed, the State’s influence by means of CCP structures within companies effectively results in economic operators being under the government’s control and policy supervision, given how far the State and Party structures have grown together in China.

(46) Furthermore, the Law on Promoting the Private Sector mandates that ‘private economic organizations and their operators shall support the leadership of the Communist Party of China, adhere to the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, and actively participate in the construction of a socialist modern power’ (33).