Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2333 of 19 November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of hardwood plywood 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 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 11 October 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the PRC’) 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 27 August 2024 by the Greenwood Consortium (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of hardwood plywood in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of the resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) The Commission made imports of hardwood plywood subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3140 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 12 May 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about 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. No comments were received on the accuracy of the calculations.

(5) On 10 June 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1139 (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 China National Forest Products Industry Association (‘CNFPIA’) representing two Chinese exporting producers including the company Pizhou Jiangshan Wood (‘Jiangshan Wood’), an ad hoc association representing seven exporting producers (‘Certain Number of Cooperating Exporting Producers’ or ‘CEP’), an ad hoc association of 28 Chinese exporting producers (‘Association of exporting producers’ or ‘the association’), the complainant, the user Keflico A/S (‘Keflico’), the unrelated importer Questwood sp. z o.o (‘Questwood’), the wholesaler and unrelated importer Ljungberg Fritzoe AB (‘Ljungberg Fritzoe’), as well as the ad hoc association of EU unrelated importers and users, the Plywood Trade Interest Alliance (‘PTIA’), the federation of unrelated importers, retailers and wholesalers, European Timber Trade Federation (‘ETTF’) and the German wholesalers, retailers and unrelated importers association Gesamtverband Deutscher Holzhandel (‘GD Holz’) filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation (5).

(7) The parties who so requested, were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the complainant, PTIA, CNFPIA the Association of exporting producers, and Jiangshan Wood. The PTIA also submitted a post-hearing brief. Additionally, the PTIA requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer heard the PTIA in writing and a subsequent hearing took place, following an additional request, on 16 October 2025, as explained in recital (11) below.

(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 where 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 hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) Following final disclosure, the Commission received comments from the association of exporting producers, CEP, CNFPIA, Jiangshan Wood, the PTIA, exporting producer Xuzhou Saintland Wood Inc (‘Saintland Wood’) and Andrex B.V. (‘Andrex’), an importer and distributor of container spare parts and materials, including hardwood plywood container floors. The comments are addressed below in the respective sections.

(11) Parties who so requested, were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Jiangshan Wood on 9 October 2025 and the PTIA on 13 October 2025. In addition, the PTIA requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer with regard to the right to be heard by the Hearing Officer, the right to equal treatment, the right to comment and submit evidence; the right to access to open file, the right to be informed of the main facts and considerations on which the European Commission based its findings and the right to good administration (6). The hearing took place on 16 October 2025. The Hearing Officer did not request any further follow up action following the hearing held with the PTIA on 16 October 2025. On 21 October 2025, a hearing with the Hearing Officer was also requested by Jiangshan Wood. The hearing request could not be accommodated since it came outside of the deadlines stipulated in Sections 5.7 and 11 of Notice of Initiation and, due to its late submission, did not allow for the intervention of the Hearing Officer.

(12) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that its rights of defence were breached by the confidential treatment of the complaint. PTIA argued that the complainants had no specific product portfolios allowing the identification of individual injury factors and that the fact that the Commission did not present the injury data of sampled Union producers in ranges in the provisional Regulation demonstrated that the application of confidentiality at complaint stage was unreasonable.

(13) The PTIA’s argument that the confidential treatment of data by indexation in ranges in the complaint breaches the rights of defence of the PTIA was rejected because data related to production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, cost of production, sales, inventories and employment was indeed presented in ranges in the complaint, however, it was always accompanied by the relevant index showing their percentage change. The treatment of data in such manner struck an adequate balance between the rights of the complainant for the confidential treatment of their most sensitive data and the right of defence of interested parties. In addition, requesting confidential treatment, of their sensitive data, i.e. its presentation using ranges, is a prerogative of interested parties in the proceeding. It was requested by the complainants at initiation and accepted by the Commission, due to the existence of specific types of products by the complainants, i.e. their specific product portfolios that would have allowed the identification of company sensitive data even when aggregated. At provisional stage, sampled Union producers did not request such confidential treatment. In the absence of other new elements, therefore, the Commission confirmed its findings and conclusions in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation.

(14) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA continued to dispute the representativeness of the complaint and requested the Commission to disclose its calculation of standing.

(15) The Commission confirmed its findings on standing in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation. The note on standing (7) was added to the open file on the day of the initiation of the case. It included a list of EU producers and associations contacted by the Commission. The note did not specify the production and sales figures of individual producers. These details, in ranges, could be found in the individual standing replies (8). The note disclosed in sufficient detail the methodology used for the purpose of calculating standing pursuant to Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Specifically, Union producers expressly supporting the complaint accounted for more than 25 % of total production of the like product produced by the Union industry. The complaint was supported by Union producers whose collective output constituted more than 50 % of the total production of the like product produced by that portion of the Union industry expressing either support for or opposition to the complaint. No producer expressing opposition to the complaint came forward during the standing exercise. For the sake of transparency, the Commission further disclosed that the expressly supporting Union producers accounted for approximately 25 % to 30 % of the total production referred to above. Accordingly, the request was rejected. The Commission noted that PTIA did not provide any substantive evidence demonstrating the lack of standing of the complainants.

(16) After the final disclosure, the PTIA resubmitted that the Commission had not disclosed sufficiently precise production data allowing for the calculation of the standing of the complainants. The PTIA claimed that in the case of data relating to nine complainants disclosing relevant data in ranges was unwarranted.

(17) The Commission disclosed the production figures in ranges in order to protect the confidentiality of this sensitive, proprietary information. The Commission followed the standard procedure in anti-dumping investigations by disclosing such information in ranges. The number of complaining companies does not affect the obligation of the Commission to protect sensitive information. The Commission noted again that despite repeating the claims on standing, the PTIA did not submit any evidence demonstrating that the complainants lacked standing. The claim was, therefore, rejected.

(18) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA submitted that the Commission disregarded critical information relating to Union interest at provisional stage by not taking into account during its provisional assessment the PTIA submission of 15 January 2025 (9) rebutting the counterarguments submitted by the complainant (10) following PTIA’s comments on initiation (11). PTIA argued that it did not miss the deadline for submission of the data in question but, as a fallback argument, it referred to WTO case law (12), arguing that information submitted after the deadline cannot be automatically disregarded.

(19) The Commission concluded that in view of the clarification provided about the deadline to rebut filings of other parties, the PTIA’s argument that its rebuttal of the Greenwood Consortium’s rebuttal of interested parties’ comments met the deadline is incorrect.

(20) In addition, and most importantly, the Commission did not disregard the substance of the said rebuttal. The claims on Union interest, already submitted by the PTIA on 25 November 2024 (13) and 3 January 2025 (14), were considered by conducting a thorough analysis of the interests of different classes of users and specifically referencing the opinion of the PTIA in recitals (355) and (362) of the provisional Regulation.

(21) The argument in the submission referred to in recital (18), regarding the lack of standing of the Union industry and the excessive confidentiality of the standing calculations already raised by the PTIA in its submission of 25 November 2024 (15) and 3 January 2025 (16) was addressed in recitals (7) to (9), (12) and (13) of the provisional Regulation, as well as recital (15) above. The argument regarding the conclusions of the Commission and the Court on product scope in the birch plywood from Russia (17) investigation already raised in the PTIA’s submissions of 25 November 2024 (18) and 3 January 2025 (19) was addressed in recitals (54) to (56) of the provisional Regulation. The film-faced plywood product exclusion request already raised by the PTIA on 24 October 2024 (20), 18 November 2024 (21) and 3 January 2025 (22) was addressed in recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional Regulation. The eucalyptus hardwood plywood product exclusion request already raised by the PTIA on 24 October 2024 (23), 18 November 2024 (24), 25 November 2024 (25), and 3 January 2025 (26) was addressed in recitals (61) and (62) of the provisional Regulation. The product exclusion request for plywood with outer layers of 0,3 mm or less, as well as thin plywood of thicknesses less than 6 mm, already raised on 24 October 2024 (27), 18 November 2024 (28), 25 November 2024 (29) and 3 January 2025 (30), was addressed in recitals (63) and (64) of the provisional Regulation. The product exclusion request for plywood with engineered veneers, already submitted on 24 October 2024 (31), 18 November 2024 (32), 25 November 2024 (33) and 3 January 2025 (34), was addressed in recitals (65) and (66) of the provisional Regulation. The tropical species exclusion request, already submitted on 3 January 2025 (35), was addressed in recitals (75) and (76) of the provisional regulation.

(22) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that its submission of 15 January 2025 was filed within the prescribed deadline, i.e. 25 June 2025, the deadline to comment on the disclosure of provisional findings (36), as contained in Section 7 of the Notice of Initiation. The PTIA claimed that because this submission contained new information it did not fall under the 75-day deadline for submitting comments on information submitted by other interested parties (37).

(23) The Commission rejected the argument because the title of the PTIA submission of 15 January 2025 read ‘Rebuttal of the Plywood Trade Interest Alliance on the Complainants’ comments’ (38), clearly referring to the submission of comments on the information submitted by other interested parties, namely the complainant, and, therefore, subject to the 75-day deadline set out in Section 8 of the Notice of Initiation.

(24) Furthermore, the Commission recalled that the deadline for submitting any information before provisional measures were imposed was 70 days after initiation, which was shorter than the 75-day deadline for submitting comments on information submitted by other interested parties (39). The PTIA’s claim that new factual information can be submitted until the end of the deadline to submit comments on the disclosure of the provisional findings irrespective of the deadlines contained in Section 8 of the Notice of Initiation was incorrect. PTIA argued that since the final deadline for submitting new information was the end of the period for comments on provisional measures, as long as it contained new information, a submission could be made anytime. The Commission rejected the argument because the deadline of 70 days after initiation for submissions for the provisional stage was clearly set out in Section 7 of the Notice of Initiation.

(25) The Commission further noted that, contrary to the claim by the PTIA, there was no new information in its submission of 15 January 2025. In the section entitled ‘Alleged Circumvention Claims’ (40), the PTIA did not make any claims or submit any evidence regarding the monitoring of hardwood plywood with a thin outer layer of softwood, see recital (382) of the provisional Regulation. Instead, it argued against the registration of imports for products falling outside the current product scope and requested the Commission to define unambiguously the product scope. The issue of registration of products falling outside the scope of the investigation had no factual basis, was not raised and, therefore, was not relevant for this case. The product scope was also defined unambiguously in the Notice of Initiation (41).

(26) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that the Commission did not take into account the substance of its claims from the 15 January 2025 submission.

(27) The Commission reaffirmed its statements in recitals (20) and (21), regarding the treatment of the relevant substantive claims of the PTIA. The PTIA submission in question is a counter-rebuttal of the rebuttal of the complainant filed on 20 December 2024 (42), rebutting the submission of the PTIA and other interested parties made since the initiation of the investigation. In its counter-rebuttal, the PTIA was limited in scope to the issues contained in the document submitted by the complainant that in itself was limited to issues already raised by the PTIA in previous submissions (24 October 2024 (43), 18 November 2024 (44) and 25 November 2024 (45)). The counter-rebuttal of the PTIA was, therefore, limited by definition to additional clarifications to claims that were already made.

(28) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that information contained in the Annexes of the 15 January 2025 submission was not taken into account by the Commission.

(29) The Commission found, in particular, that the substance of the performance report submitted as an annex showing the difference in quality in Chinese and Union produced film faced plywood was already known and was addressed in recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional Regulation. The substance of the evidence submitted relating to the limitation of production of thin faced plywood by the Union industry was already known and it was referred to in recitals (63) and (64) of the provisional Regulation. In its submission of 25 November 2024 (46), the PTIA referred to the ‘support letters’ of Union companies already as ‘more than 100 support letters’. The existence of these, therefore, was known. In addition, all support letters were based on a template and raised exactly the same points. The opposition of the signatory companies was already considered when assessing Union interest, see recital (20).

(30) The PTIA submitted that the Commission should exercise its discretion and not collect provisional duties because the measures could be annulled due to the irregularity relating to the rights to defence, i.e. the neglect of opposition letters by 140 companies at provisional stage.

(31) The Commission considered that it had thoroughly analysed all of the PTIA’s claims related to Union interest at provisional stage, see recital (20). The argument was, therefore, rejected.

(32) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested an explanation for not including UPM or Latvijas Finieris in the sample.

(33) The Commission confirmed the reasons for selecting the sample of Union producers set out in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation.