Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1890 of 18 September 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand 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 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron, excluding bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid, currently falling under CN codes ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19 10 10) and ex 7307 19 90 (TARIC code 7307 19 90 10) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) and Thailand (‘the original investigation’).

(2) The duty, based on the elimination of dumping level, ranged between 14,9 % and 57,8 %. The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(3) On 12 June 2013, the Chinese exporting producer Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd (‘Jinan Meide’) lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union seeking the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 in so far as it applied to it. On 30 June 2016, the General Court in its judgement found that the rights of defence of Jinan Meide were breached and annulled the contested Regulation in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, manufactured by Jinan Meide.

(4) Following the above-mentioned judgement, by Notice of 28 October 2016 (3), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) reopened the anti-dumping investigation concerning threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, manufactured by Jinan Meide.

(5) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 (4), the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 39,2 % on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the PRC, manufactured by Jinan Meide.

(6) On 25 November 2015, the Commission initiated a partial interim review, following the request of Metpro Limited, concerning certain types of threaded tube or pipe case fitting of malleable cast iron originating in PRC and Thailand in order to determine whether they fell within the scope of applicable anti-dumping measures. The Commission terminated this partial interim review on 18 July 2016, by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1176 (5) following the applicant's withdrawal of his request.

(7) On 23 May 2017, the Commission initiated a partial interim review, following the request of Hebei Yulong Casting Co., Ltd, concerning certain types of threaded tube or pipe case fitting of malleable cast iron originating in PRC and Thailand in order to determine whether they fall within the scope of applicable anti-dumping measures. The Commission terminated this partial interim review by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/52 (6) following the applicant's withdrawal of their request.

(8) On 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (7) decided that fittings, made of spheroidal graphite cast iron (also known as ductile cast iron) do not correspond to the concept of ‘malleable cast iron’ as defined within CN subheading 7307 19 10 . The Court concluded that fittings made of spheroidal graphite cast iron must be classified under the residual CN subheading 7307 19 90 (as other articles of other iron).

(9) On 14 February 2019, the Commission published Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/262 (8) amending the references to TARIC codes in order to align them with the Court's conclusions. Because anti-dumping measures are imposed according to the product definition irrespective of the tariff classification, this amendment did not have any impact on the product scope of the current measures.

(10) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1259 (9) the European Commission reimposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand following an expiry review (‘the previous expiry review’).

(11) Jinan Meide challenged Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146 before the General Court. On 20 September 2019 the General Court issued its judgment in case T-650/17 (10) regarding Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146.

(12) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1210 (11), the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 36,0 % on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the PRC, manufactured by Jinan Meide.

(14) The anti-dumping duties currently in force range between 24,6 % and 57,8 % on imports from China and between 14,9 % and 15,5 % on imports from Thailand.

(15) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (13), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(16) The request for review was lodged on 25 April 2024 by the Ad Hoc Defence Committee of Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(17) 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 24 July 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron originating in China and Thailand (‘the countries concerned’) 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 (14) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(18) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(19) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicants, other known Union producers, the known producers in China and Thailand, the authorities of the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and known importers, as well as users and traders about the initiation of the expiry review investigation and invited them to participate.

(20) 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. No interested party requested a hearing.

(21) 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

(22) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample based on representativity in terms of size of the production and sales volume of the product under investigation during the review investigation period.

(23) The sample consisted of two Union producers which accounted for around 70 % of the estimated total Union production and sales volume of the like product in the Union. The sample also ensured a good geographical spread.

(24) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the sample was representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of importers

(25) 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.

(26) No unrelated importers provided the requested information or agreed to be included in the sample. In view of this the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of producers in China

(27) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all producers in China 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 producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(28) No producer in China provided the requested information or agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore considered that no producers in China cooperated with the investigation.

Sampling of producers in Thailand

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

(30) No producer in Thailand provided the requested information or agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore considered that no producers in Thailand cooperated with the investigation.

(31) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’). The Commission did not receive any reply to this questionnaire. Therefore, there was no cooperation from the GOC.

(32) The Commission requested the sampled Union producers to complete the questionnaires, which were made available on its website on the day of initiation.

(33) Questionnaire replies were received from the two sampled Union producers: Berg Montana Fittings EAD and Georg Fischer Fittings GmbH.

(35) On 10 July 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.

(36) The Commission received comments from the applicant, in which they agreed with its findings. No other comments or requests for hearings were received.

(37) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and previous expiry review, namely threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron, currently falling under CN code ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19 10 10 and 7307 19 10 20) (‘the product under review’ or ‘MTF’).

(38) The following products are excluded: bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread; malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid; ductile iron clamp tees with rubber sealing and an outlet hole; ductile iron grooved end caps for use on grooved steel pipe with a threaded outlet; ductile iron grooved reducers with threaded end; ductile iron grooved reducing tees with a threaded outlet; ductile iron blanking saddles without threaded outlets used to seal a hole in a tube or pipe.

(39) The main input raw materials are metal scrap, coke/electricity/gas, sand (for moulding) and zinc (for galvanisation). The first step of the manufacturing process is the melting of metal scrap. This is followed by the moulding process and the casting of various shapes which are then separated into single pieces. The products have to go through a lengthy annealing process to ensure that they are sufficiently malleable to be used in applications where e.g. shock and vibration resistance are required and to withstand rapid temperature changes. Subsequently, fittings can be galvanized. Then the threading and other machining takes place.

(40) The product under review is used in a wide range of applications, for example for connecting two or more pipes or tubes, connecting a pipe to an apparatus, changing the direction of a fluid flow, or closing a pipe. Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings are mainly used in the gas, water and heating systems of residential and non-residential buildings. They are also used in the pipe systems of oil refineries. These fittings are available in many configurations, the most common being 90-degree elbows, tees, couplings, crosses, and unions. They are produced in both black (non-galvanized) and galvanized form.

(41) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in China and Thailand.

(43) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(44) During the review investigation period, imports of MTF from China continued to enter the Union market.

(45) According to Eurostat and information from the Union industry imports of MTF from China accounted for about 19 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 47 % market share during the original investigation and 21 % during the previous expiry review.

(46) As mentioned in recitals (28) and (30), none of the exporting producers from China cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of China that due to the absence of cooperation the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings regarding China. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(47) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation of dumping regarding China were based on facts available, i.e. information in the request for review, the statistics collected, and other public sources identified where applicable.

(48) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to China, 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.

(49) 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, 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.

(50) 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, 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 China.

(51) 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. The applicant made use of Brazil as a representative country in their request for review.

(52) 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.

(53) On 10 February 2025 the Commission published a Note to inform interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value.

(54) 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 under review. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Thailand as an appropriate representative country.

(55) The Commission also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A costs’) and profits based on available data from three profitable Thai companies.

(56) The Commission received comments on the Note from the applicant, setting out that it accepted Thailand as an appropriate representative country.

(57) 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”.

(58) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, if “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 below as ‘SG&A costs’).

(59) 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 Chinese producers, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(60) 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 China, 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.

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