Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2314 of 17 November 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of phosphorous 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 19 March 2025, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of phosphorous acid originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘the country 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 (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 3 February 2025 by ICL Europe Coöperatief U.A. (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made by on behalf of the Union industry of phosphorous 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) 2025/1334 (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 complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the People’s Republic of China authorities, known importers and users 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) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(7) As mentioned in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission made available questionnaires to the only two known Union producers, namely to the complainant and Italmatch Chemicals SPA. Sampling of Union producers was not considered necessary.

(8) 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.

(9) No unrelated importers provided the requested information or agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore did not select any sample of importers.

(10) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the 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) With their sampling replies, Linyi Chunming and Zibo Tiandan informed the Commission that, in addition to their own product, they exported to the Union phosphorous acid manufactured by other unrelated producers. The companies claimed that they were not able to distinguish in their records own and purchased product.

(13) On that basis, the Commission considered that the companies had not provided necessary information concerning the export sales to the Union of phosphorous acid manufactured by the companies in its sampling reply within the deadline. On 14 April 2025, the Commission informed the companies of its intention to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation, and thus base the findings in respect of normal value, export price and dumping margin on facts available. The companies were given the opportunity to provide comments.

(14) In response to the Article 18 letters, Linyi Chunming and Zibo Tiandan provided clarifications showing that the companies were, contrary to their earlier claims, able to track the origin (production or purchase) of phosphorous acid sold to the Union. Those clarifications were, at that stage, sufficiently supported by evidence. In case of Linyi Chunming, this exercise led to a reduction of its export sales to the Union of phosphorous acid manufactured by the company by approximately one third.

(15) Consequently, the Commission decided not to apply the provisions of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation and included the two companies in its considerations when selecting the provisional sample of exporting producers.

(16) In addition, Hebei Jia’ao revised without proper justification its sampling reply reducing the quantity of sales to the Union to one third of the quantity originally reported. The Commission requested the company to provide additional information proving the accuracy of the revised sampling reply. The company, however, failed to submit the requested evidence.

(17) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the company had not provided necessary information concerning the export sales to the Union of phosphorous acid manufactured by the company in its sampling reply within the deadline. On 14 April 2025, the Commission informed the company of its intention to apply Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation and thus base the findings in respect of normal value, export price and dumping margin on facts available and the reasons for this.

(18) Hebei Jia’ao was given the opportunity to comment on the Commission’s intentions and the underlying reasoning described in recitals 16 and 17. The company however did not provide any comments. Therefore, the Commission considered that the company did not cooperate in the investigation.

(19) By a Note Verbale of 14 April 2025, the Commission informed the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’) of its intention to apply facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to findings concerning Linyi Chunming, Zibo Tiandan and Hebei Jia’ao, and gave the GOC an opportunity to comment. No comments were received from the GOC.

(21) These companies represented 15 % of the estimated export quantity of phosphorous acid to the Union from the PRC in the investigation period and 70 % of the exports to the Union by the companies that replied to the sampling questions.

(22) By a Note Verbale of 30 April, the Commission informed the GOC of the selection of the provisional sample of exporting producers and invited it to comment. No comments were received from the GOC.

(23) The Commission also invited the interested parties to comment on the selection of the sample of exporting producers. Comments were received from the complainant.

(24) The complainant argued that the two companies selected for the sample were not representative of the Chinese industry producing phosphorous acid, as both companies produced phosphorous acid from a by-product of dimethyl phosphite (‘DMHP’). The complainant argued that, since both companies produced phosphorous acid from a by-product, their production cost would not reflect the actual cost of the main input – the by-product of DMHP. Its purchase price would rather mirror the notional savings the supplier achieved by not having to dispose of the by-product as waste.

(25) Following the complainant’s comments on the provisional sample of exporting producers, the Commission requested all cooperating Chinese companies to explain their production process in detail and provide for each production step, a detailed description of the respective processing operation, equipment/machinery employed, inputs used, and outputs and by-products obtained.

(27) In the Commission’s initial assessment none of the three methods described above could be considered as production of phosphorous acid. In all three cases phosphorous acid was being purchased in diluted form, sometimes together with impurities. It was then purified and concentrated.

(28) On 12 June 2025, the Commission published a Note for the file on the production processes used by the cooperating Chinese companies and sought the views of the parties as to whether the processing operations described in recital 26 could be considered production of phosphorous acid and whether the inputs used in those processes could be considered the product under investigation.

(29) Only the complainant provided its views. It submitted that the inputs used in all three processing operations constituted the product under investigation, as it was defined as ‘phosphorous acid, in solid or liquid (aqueous) forms, also denominated phosphonic acid, […]’. Furthermore, the complainant argued that none of the three processes represented production of phosphorous acid. It explained that in all three processes, the phosphorous acid molecule had already been produced via hydrolysis of PCl3 in an upstream production step. The processes carried out by the cooperating Chinese companies represented mere purification and/or drying of liquid phosphorous acid. Only in the process involving by-product of DMHP, a negligible volume of new phosphorous acid was produced from the residua of DMHP contained in the solution. Consequently, the complainant argued that all Chinese producers performing the processing operations described in recital 26 should not be considered exporting producers.

(30) The Commission analysed the information received from the cooperating Chinese companies and comments submitted by the complainant. Indeed, the chemical reaction that created the phosphorous acid molecule occurred at an upstream stage of the value chain. Upstream companies produced the product under investigation as a by-product and supplied the cooperating Chinese producers with a solution containing mainly phosphorous acid, some water and impurities. The cooperating Chinese companies performed minor processing operations limited to, in particular, purification and transformation of a liquid product into solid crystals.

(32) The only remaining exporting producer, JQWT, represented less than 4 % of the estimated volume of phosphorous acid exported from the PRC to the Union. Thus, it was not sufficiently representative to serve as a basis for country-wide findings. In addition, although the company indicated that it would request individual examination, it failed to submit a questionnaire reply within the deadline, i.e. the individual information of the only exporting producer was not available.

(33) Consequently, on 10 July 2025, the Commission informed the interested parties of the results of its analysis described in recitals 30 to 32 and that it considered the degree of non-cooperation in this investigation was likely to materially affect the outcome of the investigation within the meaning of Article 17(4) of the basic Regulation, and thus intended to apply the relevant provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to establish findings of dumping at country-wide level (‘definitive sampling decision’).

(34) The GOC was equally informed of the definitive sampling decision by a Note Verbale of 10 July 2025. It did not submit any comments.

(35) In response to the Commission’s definitive sampling decision, the three affected companies requested a hearing. During the hearing, they argued that since they owned production lines and processed liquid phosphorous acid as a raw material into solid phosphorous acid, they should be considered producers and as such exporting producers in this investigation. The two initially sampled companies requested an individual dumping margin to be established for them.

(36) The three companies confirmed during the hearing that they used liquid phosphorous acid as their main input in the processing operations they performed. In addition, they did not provide any substantial arguments against the Commission’s conclusion that the product under investigation was manufactured at an upstream stage by their suppliers. Consequently, the Commission confirmed its conclusions on the degree of non-cooperation and the subsequent application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to establish findings of dumping at country-wide level.

(37) 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 GOC.

(38) Furthermore, the complainant provided in the complaint sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in the PRC 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 the PRC. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the GOC.

(39) The GOC did not reply to any of the questionnaires. Therefore, by a Note Verbale of 10 July 2025, the Commission informed the GOC that it intended to use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the existence of significant distortions and of raw material distortions in the PRC. The GOC was provided an opportunity to comment. No comments were received from the GOC.

(40) The Commission sent questionnaires to the two initially sampled Chinese companies.

(41) All questionnaires, including a questionnaire for unrelated importers and a questionnaire for users, were made available online (4) on the day of initiation.

(42) A questionnaire reply was received within the deadlines from the complainant. The second Union producer, Italmatch Chemicals SPA, did initially not reply to the questionnaire. The company explained to the Commission that this was due to the fact that it did not sell the product under investigation on the free market. However, upon request by the Commission, at a later stage it provided a questionnaire reply which allowed the Commission to base the injury analysis on the entire Union industry of phosphorous acid (5).

(43) The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of injury and Union interest. As explained in Section 1.4.3.2, the determination of dumping was based on facts available.

(44) A verification visit pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation was carried out at the premises of the complainant, ICL Europe Coöperatief U.A. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The Commission carried out remote crosschecks (‘RCC’) of the questionnaire reply of the second Union producer, Italmatch Chemicals SPA (Genoa, Italy).

(45) 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’).

(46) The product under investigation is phosphorous acid (‘PA’), in solid or liquid (aqueous) forms, currently falling under CN code ex 2811 19 80 (TARIC code 2811 19 80 60), also denominated phosphonic acid, usually falling under Chemical Abstracts Service (‘CAS’) numbers 13598-36-2 and 10294-56-1, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’). The Customs and Statistics (‘CUS’) numbers usually corresponding to this product are 0021895-1 and 0043878-8 and originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product under investigation’).

(47) The product under investigation can be produced through two different methods. By far the most used is the hydrolysis of PCl3. Phosphorous acid can, however, also be produced through hydrolysis of phosphorus trioxide (P4O6). There are two main reasons as to why the hydrolysis of PCl3 is commonly used. First, PCl3 serves as an input in a variety of downstream products and is thus more readily available than P4O6. Second, P4O6 is more complex to produce, more reactive and therefore less stable.

(48) Phosphorous acid is used in a wide range of applications, it is the raw material in the production of phosphonates and other specialty chemicals, which have a wide range of applications across various industries (water treatment, detergents and cleaning agents, agriculture, oil and gas, construction and building materials, textile and leather industry, paper and pulp industry, pharmaceuticals and personal care, food and beverage industry).

(49) The product concerned is product under investigation originating in the PRC.

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

(52) Linyi Chunming made two submissions. The first submission sought to add a new PCN criterion to identify the raw materials used in production. The second submission requested the exclusion of its phosphorous acid produced using another raw material in comparison with the Union producer. Linyi Chunming justified its request explaining that PA produced using its specific production process, a different raw material generated a PA with a slightly lower purity level, involves different production costs, has a low environmental impact, and could serve different applications compared to the PA produced by the Union producers. For these reasons its product should be excluded from the investigation.

(53) In response to Linyi Chunming’s first claim on the PCN structure, ICL contested the Linyi Chunming’s submission explaining that it found the submission insufficiently clear, in particular the explanation of the production process. Furthermore, the raw material used was found to already contain a certain percentage of phosphorous acid, which was further processed through drying and purifying steps to reach the final crystal forms. On these grounds, ICL requested the Commission to reject the PCN modification request.

(54) The Commission, after having evaluated the Linyi Chunming’s claims and ICL submission, concluded that there was no justification to modify the PCN structure or exclude phosphorous acid produced via alternative processes. In a note for the file (6) published on 12 June 2025, the Commission clarified that other production methods for phosphorous acid primarily use raw materials already containing phosphorous acid. Even though these inputs undergo a transformation process, they should already be considered product under investigation. Therefore, both claims were rejected.

(55) 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.