Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1919 of 25 September 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam, and terminating the investigation on imports thereof originating in 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 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 8 August 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel, originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. The Commission 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 24 June 2024 by the European Steel Association (‘EUROFER’ or ‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel 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 certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, India, Japan and Vietnam subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2719 (‘the registration Regulation’) (3).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 14 March 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details of 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. The Commission did not receive comments relating to the accuracy of the calculations.

(5) On 7 April 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/670 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(6) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), the complainants, the following exporting producers: Daido Steel Co., Ltd. (‘Daido’), Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation (‘FHS’), Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company S.A.E (‘Ezz Steel’), Nippon Steel Corporation (‘Nippon Steel’) and JFE Steel Corporation (‘JFE’), Hoa Phat Group, as well as the Government of Egypt (‘GOE’) and the Government of Japan (‘GOJ’) made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Ezz Steel, the GOE, Nippon Steel and the GOJ.

(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 certain hot-rolled flat products originating in Egypt, Japan and Vietnam (‘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 GOE, Ezz Steel (EZDK and EFS), GOJ and Nippon Steel.

(11) Following the final disclosure, the Commission received comments from Daido, FHS, Hoa Phat Group, Nippon Steel, JFE, GOJ and EUROFER.

(12) Certain comments submitted by Nippon Steel were accepted, which affected the level of the injury margin for this exporting producer and for the Japanese non-sampled cooperating exporting producers. The new margins were re-disclosed in an additional final disclosure on 7 August 2025 to all parties, which were given the opportunity to provide comments. No comments were received.

(13) Following final disclosure, the Commission found that the non-captive sales to related parties by the Union industry had been double counted in consumption and sales figures reported in Tables 1, 3 and 4 of the general disclosure document. The market shares of imports from the countries concerned and other third countries calculated in Tables 2 and 6 were revised accordingly. This change does not affect the relevant trends and thereby the findings disclosed in the final disclosure. However, considering that some of the values were slightly different to the ones disclosed in the final disclosure, an additional final disclosure was made informing interested parties of these revisions on 18 August 2025. The interested parties were given an opportunity to comment within 2 days in line with the last sentence of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, given the timeframe of the investigation. No comments were received.

(15) As mentioned in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, it was considered that the version open for inspection by interested parties of the complaint contained all the essential evidence and non-confidential summaries of data provided under confidential cover in order for interested parties to exercise their right of defence throughout the proceeding. The claim was therefore rejected.

(16) After final disclosure, FHS reiterated that its concrete examples such as ‘missing PCN tables; copyright-blanked market studies; illegible capacity worksheets)’ and the absence of a reasoned explanation of why those items could remain concealed violated Article 6 WTO ADA and Article 19(2) of the Basic Regulation but did not submit additional arguments. In the absence of new elements and as mentioned in recital (15), the claim was rejected.

(17) In the absence of comments concerning sampling, recitals (27) to (35) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(18) In the absence of comments concerning this section, recital (36) of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(19) An additional verification visit was carried out at the premises of EUROFER, in Brussels, Belgium.

(20) FHS argued that by recognising in recital (45) of the provisional Regulation that the year 2021 had been ‘an exceptionally low point’ for capacity utilisation, and also acknowledging the existence of a post-COVID-19 price spike in the same period, the Commission should not have used this ‘abnormal year’ as the benchmark. By choosing 2021 as the index base year, the Commission created a bias affecting the trend line.

(21) The Commission addressed this claim in recital (42) of the provisional Regulation, where it stated that the period considered should not be extended to the year 2020 since the market and the performance of the Union industry were severely influenced by exceptional circumstances triggered by the COVID-19 crisis. Such extension would not have added value, in particular since in 2020, the industry faced significant losses, primarily attributable to the impact of COVID-19. The market situation started to go back to normal in terms of supply and demand, which explains the improvement of the economic situation of the Union Industry, however, at the same time the Union Industry found itself under renewed pressure from imports from the countries concerned, which eroded market share and profits which became even more acute in 2023 and in the IP. Moreover, the length of the period considered was consistent with standard investigation practices.

(22) After final disclosure, FHS claimed that the Commission ignored its proposal to start the investigation period in 2019 instead of 2021, which resulted in a breach of the Commission’s obligation of objective-examination standard under Article 3.1 of the ADA. Further comments received from exporting producers after final disclosure linked to both the start of the period considered and the injury analysis are addressed in the Section 4.

(23) In the absence of any other comments concerning the investigation period (‘IP’) and the period considered, recitals (40) to (45) of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(24) One exporting producer, Daido, requested the exclusion of all its types of hot-rolled flat steel products on the basis that they are known in the industry as tool steel and high-speed steel, even though they do not fit the description of tool steel included in the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN).

(25) The Commission confirmed in the provisional Regulation that tool steel and high-speed steel were not covered in the product scope of the investigation at hand. However, the Commission considered that the claim of Daido to exclude all its types of hot-rolled flat steel products was not specific enough, opening the risk that it could cover also many ordinary hot-rolled flat steel products for other uses than for tools. On these grounds, the Commission dismissed Daido’s claim to reject all its products but confirmed the exclusion of tool steel as provided in Section 2.1 of the provisional Regulation. The Commission also considered that the use of the appropriate CN codes was of the responsibility of the importers when declaring the goods to the customs authorities.

(26) Following the imposition of provisional measures, Daido claimed that even if its tool steel fell outside the definition of tool steels and therefore not falling within the dedicated CN codes to tool steel (5), their tool steel still competed with them. Therefore, the Commission should recognise ‘Daido’s tool steels’ as having different physical and chemical properties from those of the ‘hot-rolled flat steel products’ covered by this investigation, and exclude them from the product scope.

(27) Daido considered that it had in its submission established objective and specific criteria to support their exclusion request. Furthermore, Daido was confident that both the end use of tools steels and their physical characteristics were sufficiently specific for preventing the exclusion of non-tool steel products that should not be excluded from the investigation (i.e. to prevent circumvention).

(28) The Commission concluded that based on the information on the file and in the absence of information to the contrary from Daido, ‘Daido’s Tool Steel’ products are not, as such, different from HRF and could cover many ordinary hot rolled flat steel products for other uses than for tools. Consequently, the Commission did not consider that it was warranted to explicitly exclude ‘Daido’s Tool Steel’ products from the product scope.

(29) After final disclosure, Daido provided additional technical documents (inspection certificate and chemical specification sheet) to support its exclusion request. Daido also stressed that rejecting ‘Daido’s tool steel’ exclusion request meant that although their tool steel products were defined under DIN standards as tool steels, the Commission was not treating them as tool steels simply because they did not fall under the definition set in the EU’s classification system. This, in Daido’s view, was not a sufficient argument not to consider ‘Daido’s tool steel’ as tool steel. Finally, Daido pointed to the fact that when ‘Daido’s tool steels’ are imported into the EU, it provides an inspection quality certificate to the customs authorities, in which Daido’s company name and Daido’s tool steels’ types are clearly mentioned. This should thus allow customs authorities to distinguish and verify that ‘Daido’s tool steels’ are not HRF.

(30) However, Daido still failed to provide objective technical characteristics according to the definition of tool steel in the dedicated CN codes, that would confirm that they fall in the definition set in the EU’s classification system of tool steel and thus allow customs authorities to distinguish ‘Daido’s tool steels’ from any other steel product covered by the measures. An alleged market perception is not sufficient to exclude a product. The reference to DIN standards allowing to define tool steel products was rejected on the ground that the description of tool steel, which is included in the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) provided a very precise composition of the individual elements required in the Additional Note to Chapter 72 of the EU’s Combined Nomenclature Regulation. As noted in recital (24), and confirmed by Daido, ‘Daido’s Tool Steel’ was not an actual tool steel within the meaning of the EU Combined Nomenclature. Indeed, the Commission noted that the additional note 1 to Chapter 72 provides for a clear definition of tools steels. Should the product for which an exclusion is requested not fall in the defined scope for tools steels, they should not be considered as such and would therefore fall under the scope of this investigation.

(31) The Commission thus rejected the exclusion request of ‘Daido’s tool steels’. As to the impact on the requesting party, the Commission failed to see why the non- exclusion would be ‘catastrophic’, as claimed by the party, given the capacity of Daido to declare its products under the correct CN code to the customs authorities or to request a specific CN code.

(32) In the absence of any other comments with respect to the product scope, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals (52) and (53) of the provisional Regulation.

(33) Following imposition of provisional measures, the Commission received written comments on the provisional dumping findings regarding Egypt from the Egyptian exporting producer Ezz Steel, the GOE and EUROFER. In addition, comments were received after final disclosure from Ezz Steel and the GOE. Those claims are addressed in the relevant sections below.

(34) The details of the calculation methodology of the normal value were set out in recitals (54) to (65) of the provisional Regulation.

(35) In the absence of claims related to the calculation of the normal value, those recitals are hereby confirmed.

(36) The details of the calculation of the export price were set out in recital (66) of the provisional Regulation.

(37) At the provisional disclosure stage, EZZ Steel identified five export sales transactions which were reported by the company in their questionnaire reply but were missing from the dumping calculation. The Commission corrected accordingly.

(38) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, Ezz Steel and the GOE submitted that the Commission should have used the invoice date as the date for the exchange rate to convert export sales to the Union in USD into local currency, instead of using the initial sales contract date. Ezz Steel furthermore argued that, if the Commission were to deviate from using the invoice date, it should not use the initial sales contract date, but the date of issuance of the letter of credit for the corresponding export sale, when the contract becomes final. For this, an average time lag between the invoice date and sales contract date of 20 days was proposed by the company based on the few export transactions sampled by the Commission during the verification which would effectively lead to applying an average exchange rate no greater than 30 days following the date at which the sales legal terms become final.

(39) EZZ Steel argued that the Commission should also use the sales invoice date to the domestic sales as there was also a time lag of between one and two months between the date of the sales contract and the date of the invoice, and that prices varied between those dates.

(40) Regarding the export sales, the parties did not demonstrate, nor did the sampled sales transactions reveal that there was a structural difference in the agreed terms of sales (for instance in price, volume or quality) in between the initial sales contract date and the date of issuance of the letters of credit other than the existence of a time lag for the small number of 18 export transactions in question, not representative of the population. In addition, the average of 30 days mentioned in recital (38) is irrelevant because the standard deviation of the sample is high. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(41) Concerning the claim at provisional disclosure stage regarding the existence of a similar situation for the domestic terms of sales and that for domestic sales the sales contract date should be used instead of the sales invoice date, the Commission concluded that besides that this claim was not substantiated by any evidence, there was also no reason to deviate from the domestic sales invoice date since these sales were not subject to the exchange rate difficulties as the domestic sales were all made in Egyptian pounds. This claim was thus rejected.

(42) Following the final disclosure, Ezz Steel and the GOE further elaborated on their claim at provisional stage that the Commission had used the incorrect date to convert export sales from USD to EGP, adding two reasons: the devaluation and the date when the material terms of sale are set.

(43) According to Ezz steel, the Commission did not explain in the provisional regulation how the exchange rate fluctuations and overall decrease of the EGP against the USD lead to the conclusion that the reference point needed to be the date of the sales contract and not the invoice date.

(44) The reasons for using the sales contract date instead of the invoice date were however clearly stated in recital (72) of the provisional Regulation. As explained therein, the fact that the company operated in a situation of high devaluation of the EGP against the USD and the Euro in combination with the fact that sales conditions, including the sales price, were set at the moment of the sales contract, a moment where only the exchange rate at that time was known, justified the use of the sales contract date as the correct reference date for the sale and not the invoice date.

(45) The company further argued that the ‘hybrid’ methodology used by the Commission by considering the exchange rate at the time of the contract date for export sales and the exchange rate at the time of the invoice date for the domestic sales did not allow for a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price. This was because the devaluation of the EGP was taken into account only on the domestic side while on the export side this was negated by using the sales contract date. In support of its argument, the company referred to a report prepared by a consultant which stated in its summary that this approach ‘(…) implies that domestic prices duly reflect the impact of 1-2 months of inflation (from order to invoice), whereas the corresponding appreciation of the EGP vs the USD during the same period is ignored’ (6).