Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2287 of 12 November 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of adipic acid 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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 14 March 2025, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of adipic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘China’) 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 28 January 2025 by Lanxess Deutschland GmbH and Radici Chimica S.p.A (‘the complainants’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of adipic acid 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) 2025/1041 (3) (‘the Registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Chinese 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) A hearing was held with Allnex Italy s.r.l (‘Allnex’), a user of adipic acid.

(7) Purinova sp. z o.o (‘Purinova’) a user of adipic acid submitted that it was not able to verify the legitimacy of the target profit above 6 % used in the complaint, given that it was under a confidentiality clause. Moreover, Purinova commented that the use of a profit margin based on the data of only one of the complainants cannot be considered as representative of the entire Union Industry. Purinova together with another user, COIM S.p.A. Chimica Organica (‘COIM’) also claimed that the Union industry is not able to meet the entire Union demand of adipic acid. Purinova further stated that regardless of their available production capacity, the producers in the Union are mainly producing for their own needs and therefore are pursuing a commercial policy that makes sourcing of adipic acid from them almost impossible for users. In addition, Purinova questioned the injury suffered by the Union industry based on the good financial results reported for 2024 by the Lanxess group. Finally, Purinova contested the causal link between the occurrence of injury and the increase in the volume of imports from China. Instead, Purinova claimed that the injury is due to the decrease in demand for adipic acid, which reflects the overall downward trend in the polyester polyol segment, a major area of use of adipic acid. In this respect, in their submission Purinova, COIM and Allnex and other users in their questionnaire replies (Elachem S.p.A (‘Elachem’), Reagens S.p.A. (‘Reagens’), Stepan Polska Sp. Z.o.o. (‘Stepan’) and Valtris Enterprises Limited (‘Valtris’)), expressed serious concerns about the future of the downstream industry in case of imposition of anti-dumping duties on adipic acid. All claimed that a further increase in the price of their raw material would render them extremely vulnerable against their third country competitors, in particular those from China and Türkiye.

(8) With regard to the non-confidential version of the complaint and in particular the limited information on the target profit used, upon request from the Commission, on 12 May 2025, additional information was placed in the open file available for inspection by interested parties. The information concerning the target profit used during the investigation for the calculation of the provisional injury margins can be found in recital 239.

(9) The ability of the Union industry to meet Union demand together with captive use is analysed in recital 177. As regards the availability of adipic acid, contrary to the statement of the users, alternative sources such as the USA and Brazil are still available and even more importantly, the imposition of anti-dumping duties does not intend to close off the Union market from Chinese exporting producers, but to restore the level playing field for all producers concerned. The claim on the commercial policy pursued by the Union producers was unsubstantiated and, in any event, was not confirmed by the findings of the investigation and was therefore rejected as explained in recital 268.

(10) The claim relating to the financial results of one the sampled companies was rejected on the grounds that adipic acid accounts for only a share of the total activities of the Lanxess group, whereby no conclusions can be drawn from total company figures. Moreover, the injury assessment is carried out for the Union industry and not on an individual company level. Therefore, the financial results reported for 2024 for one of the Union producers did not negate the injury suffered by the Union industry of adipic acid. In any event, the detailed injury assessment can be found in Sections 4.6 and 4.7.

(11) The claims regarding the causation and in particular the decline in demand are addressed in recitals 224 to 230. Finally, the claims regarding Union interest, in particular the situation regarding the market developments on the downstream products was assessed in Section 7.

(12) 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

(13) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of representativity of volume of production and sales on the free Union market of the like product. This sample consisted of two Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than 60 % of the estimated total volume of production and sales of the like product on the free Union market. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. The sample was considered representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of unrelated importers

(14) 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.

(15) One unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling of unrelated importers was not necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers

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

(17) Five exporting producers in the country concerned 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 authorities of the countries concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received.

(18) 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’).

(19) Furthermore, the complainants provided in the complaint sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in China regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 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.

(20) The Commission sent questionnaires to the two sampled Union producers, the sampled exporting producers in China, the importer and the known users. The same questionnaires were made available online (4) on the day of initiation.

(22) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 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’).

(23) The product under investigation is adipic acid, also known as hexanedioic acid, falling under the Chemicals Abstract Services (‘CAS’) under number 124-04-9, currently falling under CN code 2917 12 00 (‘the product under investigation’).

(24) Adipic acid is used in a wide range of applications, for example the production of Nylon 66, adhesives, sealants, plasticisers and polyurethanes, in particular polyester polyols.

(25) The product concerned is adipic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling under CN code 2917 12 00 (TARIC code 2917 12 00 10) (‘the product concerned’).

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

(28) No claims were received on the product scope.

(29) 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 China, 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.

(30) 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 China to provide information regarding the inputs used for producing adipic acid. Three exporting producers submitted the relevant information.

(31) 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 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.

(32) 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.

(33) On 13 May 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 adipic acid. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified possible representative countries, namely Brazil and Mexico. The Commission received comments on the First Note from the complainants and both sampled exporting producers.

(34) Comments were made with regard to the choice of the representative country, the benchmark to be used for the input benzene, the customs code classification for certain inputs and the designation of cyclohexane as a by-product. These comments were addressed in the relevant sections below (Sections 3.3.4.1, 3.3.5 and 3.3.5.1).

(35) On 11 July 2025, the Commission addressed the comments received from interested parties on the First Note in a second note to the file (‘the Second Note’) and informed interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Brazil 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 Rhodia Brasil, S.A. (‘Rhodia’), a producer in the representative country, if data covering the year 2024 would become available, alternatively that of Dexxos Participacoes S.A. (‘Dexxos’), a chemical producer in the representative country.

(36) Comments on the Second Note were received from Huafon and Zhonghao. These comments are addressed in Section 3.3.3.

(37) 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’.

(38) 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 hereinafter referred to as ‘SG&A’).

(39) 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, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(40) In recent investigations concerning the chemical sector in China (5), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.

(41) In those investigations, the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in China resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles (6). 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 (7), 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 (8). 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 China 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 (9). 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 China (10). 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 (11), 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 China (12).

(42) Like in previous investigations concerning the chemical sector in China, the Commission examined in the present investigation 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. 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 (13) (‘Report’), which relies on publicly available sources. 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 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 China as also found by its previous investigations in this respect.

(43) The complaint alleged that significant distortions exist in the Chinese adipic acid sector. It referred to the Report and in particular to China’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 China.

(45) 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.