Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2216 of 4 November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) 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(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 (2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid (‘TCCA’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) and the United States of America (‘USA’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will, hereinafter, be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) Following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 855/2010 (3), lowered the individual duty applicable to Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Ltd. (‘Heze Huayi’), from 14,1 % to 3,2 %.

(3) Following an expiry review of the measures limited to imports of TCCA originating in the PRC (‘first expiry review’) initiated on 6 October 2010, the Council re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of TCCA originating in China by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1389/2011 (4).

(4) On 28 August 2013 and 1 July 2014 respectively, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated two new exporter reviews pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 569/2014 (5), the Commission imposed an individual duty of 32,8 % on TCCA manufactured by one new Chinese exporting producer (6). The other Chinese exporting producer (7) formally withdrew its request during the investigation and consequently the Commission terminated the investigation by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/392 (8).

(5) Following an expiry review (‘the second expiry review’) initiated on 20 December 2016, the Commission re-imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 (9).

(6) The Commission initiated, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1209 (10), three ‘new exporter’ reviews pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. On 13 April 2022, the investigation was terminated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/619 (11).

(7) Following an expiry review (the ‘third expiry review’) initiated on 5 December 2022, the Commission re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757 (12).

(8) On 31 March 2023, the Commission initiated, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/712 (13), a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. On 13 December 2023, the investigation was terminated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2766 (14) after the applicant withdrew its request.

(9) The individual anti-dumping duties currently in force on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC range between 3,2 % and 40,5 %. The anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporting producers amounts to 42,6 %.

(10) The Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (15) (‘the request’).

(11) The request was lodged on 19 March 2024 by ERCROS S.A. and Electroquímica de Hernani S.A. (‘the applicants’) on behalf of the Union industry of TCCA in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The review request was limited in scope to the examination of dumping. The request was based on sufficient evidence provided by the applicants that, as far as dumping is concerned, the circumstances on the basis of which the existing measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. In particular, the applicants claimed that since the original investigation there has been a significant growth in the TCCA Chinese industry in terms of the number of the Chinese exporting producers and the existing production capacities of the product concerned. The applicants also claimed that the increased number of Chinese exporting producers, and consequently, the increased Chinese overcapacities have led prices to drop due to intensive competition among them. The applicants provided evidence that, since the original investigation, the average Chinese import price into the Union increased at a lower rate than the Chinese inflation rate for the same period.

(12) On 6 August 2024, the Commission initiated a partial interim review concerning imports of TCCA originating in People’s Republic of China (16) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The partial interim review is limited in scope to the examination of dumping.

(13) On 12 September 2024, Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd. (the ‘Hebei Jiheng Group’), Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. Ltd. (‘Puyang Cleanway’), as the Alliance of TCCA Exporting Producers (‘ATEP’) submitted comments on the request and the initiation of the review. On 9 December 2024, the applicants provided a reaction to these comments. On 19 December 2024, Hebei Jiheng, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway submitted a response to the applicants’ comments.

(14) The Hebei Jiheng Group, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway claimed that the arguments and data submitted by the applicants ‘did not justify the continuation of the review’ because there was no sufficient evidence of changes of a lasting nature for the TCCA industry in China.

(15) They further claimed that, in case the review was allowed to proceed, its scope should cover a recalculation of the injury margin as well.

(16) The Commission considered that the interim review request included sufficient evidence that the circumstances concerning dumping have changed significantly as required by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation to justify the initiation of an interim review. The Commission recalled that the standard to initiate an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) is lower than for imposing definitive measures, for the latter, it assessed the lasting nature of the changes during the investigation, see recitals (119) to (127).

(17) Regarding the claim that the review should also cover a recalculation of the injury margin, the Commission recalled that there was no evidence on the file supporting the view that the injury margin established in the original investigation was no longer accurate. In particular, the ATEP alleged that the long-term changes in the Chinese TCCA industry should be evaluated in light of their potential impact on the Union industry’s price. In addition, it argued that the Union industry has increased its production capacity, its domestic and export sales which allegedly influenced its pricing strategies on both domestic and export markets. Finally, it considered that the Union also implemented strategies that did not exist at the time of the original investigation, notably the ‘Transition Pathway for the Chemical Industry’ (‘TPCI’).

(18) However, the Commission found that this claim was unsubstantiated by only relying on a broad claim that the two markets are interconnected and on strategies (the TPCI) that are still to be adopted. The ATEP did neither provide sufficient evidence showing that the injury margin calculated in the original investigation would no longer be needed at its current level to offset the injurious effects of dumping, nor with regard to the data used to calculate this margin. In other words, the interested parties did not provide sufficient evidence justifying the initiation of a review covering the injury, nor was such evidence available to the Commission. Therefore, there was no evidence available to the Commission suggesting that the injury margins established previously were no longer representative of the injury suffered by the EU industry. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(19) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period or RIP’).

(20) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the known producers, exporters and the authorities of the PRC, known importers, users, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the interim review, and invited them to participate.

(21) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the interim review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(22) In order to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in China and unrelated importers in the Union 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.

(23) Two exporting producers, the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Cleanway, representing 72 % of the total volume of TCCA exports in the RIP, provided the requested sampling information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of cooperating exporting producers, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(24) No unrelated importer provided the requested sampling information. The Commission concluded that it was not necessary to sample unrelated importers in this proceeding, either.

(25) 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 China (‘GOC’).

(26) The Commission sent questionnaires to the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Cleanway. The same questionnaires had also been made available online on the day of the initiation (17).

(27) After the verification of the questionnaire reply of the Hebei Jiheng Group, it became evident that the questionnaire reply only covered the consolidated production of two related exporting producers, Hebei Ji Heng Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (‘Bai Kang’) and Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd. (‘Jiheng’). The Commission sent separate questionnaires to Bai Kang and Jiheng, requesting a reply on an individual basis.

(28) The Commission sent a questionnaire to AMIK Italia S.p.A. (‘AMIK’) an unrelated importer that made itself known, receiving a partial reply. The Commission received an unsolicited partial reply to the questionnaire for unrelated importers from Productos QP, S.A.

(31) On 2 September 2025, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to revise the level of anti-dumping duties. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(32) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. The parties who so requested, were granted a hearing.

(33) The product under review is the same as in in the original investigation and previous expiry reviews namely trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof, also referred to under the international non-proprietary name (INN) ‘symclosene’.

(34) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review, originating in the PRC currently falling under CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933 69 80 70 and 3808 94 20 20).

(36) The Commission concluded that these products are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(37) As set out in recital (46), the Commission concluded that it was not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in China to establish normal value with respect to the imports of TCCA from the PRC, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. Imports from China continued during the RIP, more than 32 thousand tons of TCCA were imported.

(38) Consequently, the Commission proceeded to construct the normal value exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, that is, on the basis of corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(39) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation showing with regard to the PRC the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation of dumping on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(40) In order to obtain information 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 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 the PRC.

(41) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it had provisionally selected Mexico as 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 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.

(42) On 10 January 2025, the Commission informed interested parties by a note (18) (‘the First Note’) on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In the First Note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of TCCA. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified possible representative countries, namely Mexico and Indonesia. The Commission received comments from the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Clenway, as well as the applicants.

(43) On 5 March 2025, after having analysed the comments received, the Commission issued a Second Note (19) on the sources for the determination of the normal value (‘the Second Note’). In the Second Note, the Commission informed interested parties about the relevant sources intended for the determination of the normal value using Indonesia as the representative country under Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs and profits based on publicly available financial statements of P.T. Pindo Deli (‘Pindo Deli’), a TCCA producer in Indonesia. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the Second Note. Comments were received from the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Clenway. The arguments of the parties are addressed in Section 3.2.2.4 below.

(44) 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’.

(45) 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 hereinafter as ‘SG&A’).

(46) 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 comments by the exporting producers on this issue, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(47) 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 the PRC, rendering the use of domestic prices and costs in that country inappropriate. The analysis covered the following evidentiary elements of the various criteria relevant to establishing the existence of significant distortions.

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

(49) The applicant noted that significant distortions exist with respect to all the elements of the cost of production of TCCA. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the situation which was prevailing at the time of the Commission’s most recent expiry review regarding imports of TCCA in China (20) has not changed.

(50) Specifically, the applicant argued that the Chinese market of the product under review is served by enterprises operating under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the Chinese authorities. With regard to this, the applicant remarked that many producers of the product under review are fully or partially State-owned. Additionally, it also noted that the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP’) interferes in the decision-making of private entities, exercising a de facto control on their activity (21).

(51) The applicant also argued that Chinese state presence in TCCA producers allows the state to interfere with respect to prices and costs. It reaffirmed the state interference, not only through SOEs but also through CCP members in managerial positions of private companies. In fact, the applicant noted that state interference is evidenced in all factors of production of the product under review (22).