Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2337 of 24 November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China

(212) In the absence of cooperation of unrelated importers in the present case, a reasonable profit established at 5 % in the original glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) (118) investigation for a downstream glass fibre product was used to establish a reliable export price at the Union frontier level.

(213) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.

(214) As explained in recital (194), the normal value was established at the ex-works level of trade by using costs of production together with amounts for SG&A costs and for profit, which were considered to be reasonable for that level of trade. Therefore, no adjustments were necessary to net the normal value back to the ex-works level.

(215) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: customs duty, other import charges, freight, insurance, handling loading and ancillary expenses.

(216) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost, bank charges and commissions.

(217) For the sampled cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(218) Given the high rate of cooperation of Chinese exporting producers, the ‘all other companies’ duty was set at the level of the highest duty to be imposed on the companies sampled or cooperating in the investigation. The ‘all other companies’ duty will be applied to those companies which did not cooperate in the investigation.

(219) Chongqing Polycomp International Corporation was the only exporting producer that came forward during the sampling exercise and was not sampled. Its definitive duty rate is set at the weighted average of the rates established for the cooperating exporting producers in the sample.

(221) The like product was manufactured by ten producers in the Union at the beginning of the period considered, while two of them ceased production during the RIP, as mentioned in recital (46). They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(222) The total Union production during the RIP was established at 504 019 tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of the available information concerning the Union industry as provided by Glass Fibre Europe (‘GFE’). As indicated in recital (19), manufacturing plants of three Union producers were selected in the sample, representing 60 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(224) The total consumption of GFR in the Union decreased by 6 % during the period considered. The increase observed in 2022 was mainly due to the economic recovery following the lifting of the COVID-19 measures as users resumed placing orders to restock inventories and restarted production. However, during 2023 demand for GFR in the Union decreased while in the RIP it recovered by 2 %. Decline in consumption and subsequent poor recovery were attributed to over-ordering in previous years and more cautious consumer spending due to the economic climate in the RIP.

(226) Even with the measures in place, the volume of imports from the PRC increased by 51 % during the period considered. Considering the evolution of consumption, the market share of Chinese imports increased from 6 % in the 2021 to 10 % in the RIP.

(228) The average import price of the product under review into the Union initially increased by 22 % in 2022 due to exceptionally high shipping costs that followed the lifting of the COVID-19 measures. Subsequently, a significant drop in average import prices could be observed. In the RIP, the average price of imports into the Union was 28 % lower than in 2021.

(230) For sampled exporting producer Taishan Fiberglass Inc., sales made under a special supply agreement with Union producer European Owens Corning Fiberglas SPRL were excluded from the undercutting calculations because the product in question – an alkali-resistant glass fibre used for reinforcing cement – was not produced in the Union. The product is instead manufactured exclusively in China and Japan under a long-standing supply agreement between these two companies, with production relying on European Owens Corning Fiberglas SPRL’s proprietary technology and inputs (e.g. bushings).

(231) The comparison showed that, during the RIP, imports of the product under review originating in the PRC were sold in the Union at prices which undercut the Union industry prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, by 16,64 % to 30,68 %, even when including the applicable anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

(232) In addition to price undercutting, there was also significant price suppression within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the basic Regulation. Due to the significant price pressure caused by the low-priced dumped imports from Chinese exporting producers, the Union industry was unable to raise its prices throughout the RIP in line with the development of costs of production while trying to achieve a reasonable level of profit, as set out in Table 9 below. The significant price suppression was confirmed by the data in Table 4 as well as the price underselling found on the basis of the data provided by the sampled exporting producers.

(233) The assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(234) As mentioned in recital (19), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(235) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of the information provided by GFE. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

(236) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping.

(237) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital.

(239) Production volume in 2022 increased slightly in comparison to 2021 following relaxation of the COVID-19 measures which facilitated more stable production. Furthermore, in 2022 several sampled Union producers increased production volume in order to accumulate inventories of finished products as they were heading into planned furnaces rebuilds. However, in 2023 and RIP there was a significant drop in production volume as the Union producers were selling off accumulated inventories while at the same time Union industry was faced with decreased demand and increased imports of GFR from the PRC at low prices.

(240) Production capacity declined consistently throughout the period considered and was reduced by 9 %. As explained in the recital (46), the decrease in production capacity from 2021 to the end of the RIP was due to some Union producers ceasing production, with Krosglass S.A. halting GFR production in Poland and Electric Glass Fiber NL, B.V. entering bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, following Brexit, NEG UK was excluded from the Union industry, which also contributed to the apparent decline in capacity compared to the previous review investigation.

(241) Capacity utilisation decreased by 10 percentage points over the period considered as production volume decreased more than production capacity.

(243) In the period considered, the sales volume on the Union free market (excluding captive sales) and market share of Union producers experienced notable downward trends reflecting a decline in demand combined with increasing imports from the PRC at low prices. In parallel, while free market consumption decreased by 6 %, the sales volume of the Union industry decreased even more so that market share of the Union industry decreased from 45 % in 2021 to 40 % in the RIP.

(245) The Union industry captive volume (composed of captive transfers and captive sales in the Union market) in the Union market went down by 10 % over the period considered. While sales in both the free market and the captive market followed a similar trend from 2021 to the end of the RIP, the decline in sales within the captive market was 7 percentage points less than in the free market.

(247) In the period considered, the number of employees in the Union industry exhibited both an initial increase and subsequent decline. The initial increase in 2022 in comparison to 2021 corresponded to the increased production and sales following the relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions. Subsequently, the Union industry had to reduce employment to adjust to the challenging market conditions and maintain operational efficiency, and some Union producers stopped production of GFR altogether as explained in the recital (46).

(248) Productivity decreased between 2021 and 2023 from 190 tonne/employee to 166 tonne/employee before picking up in the RIP to 187 tonne/employee after employment contracted significantly. The efficiency gains also followed investment performed on the furnaces by several Union producers of GFR.

(249) Dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was not negligible, given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned.

(250) The Union consumption decreased by 6 % during the period considered. The sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market decreased even more, by 16 %. The Union industry thus lost market share, contrary to the market share of the imports from the country concerned which increased during the period considered.

(252) The average sales prices increased in 2022 in comparison to 2021 as sampled Union producers were able to pass the increase in costs driven by inflation onto customers due to uptick in demand. In 2023 and in RIP average sales prices decreased resulting from a global lower market demand and increased price pressure from imports from the PRC.

(253) Unit production costs increased by 26 % from 2021 to 2023 due to an increase in labour costs and raw material. Additionally, energy costs have been volatile, significantly impacting industries that rely heavily on energy. The unit cost of production reduced in the RIP, but remained far above the 2021 level, thanks to a decrease in energy prices, improved energy efficiency and successful cost management strategies.

(255) Average labour cost per employee followed a consistent upward trend with an overall increase of 11 % during the period considered. The increase was mainly due to labour market pressures, as companies raised wages to retain and attract employees in a tight post-COVID job market marked by high inflation.

(257) The increase in inventories in 2022 was initially driven by a strategic stock buildup in anticipation of planned furnace rebuilds. This aligned with an earlier period during COVID-19 when there was a significant surge in demand and supply chain issues prompted Union producers to overorder raw materials to meet production requirements. Following the completion of furnace rebuilds, inventories decreased as sampled Union producers managed to sell off existing stocks in 2023 and the RIP. The increases in the inventories in 2022 were due to the increased stock buildup in anticipation of the shut down during the planned furnace rebuilds. However, once rebuilds were done there was a decrease in inventories as the sampled Union producers managed to sell those inventories in 2023 and RIP which coincides with a decrease in production volume

(259) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. While the Union industry incurred losses in 2021, there was an increase in profitability in 2022 as the sampled Union producers could pass the increase in unit production costs onto customers thanks to favourable market conditions linked to high demand and high shipping costs. In 2023 and in the RIP, the profitability, however, dropped due to increased costs which could not be compensated with an increase in sales prices due to an increase in import volumes at dumped prices from the PRC undercutting the Union industry’s prices.

(260) Investments during the period considered increased. These investments mainly related to rebuilds of furnaces of the sampled Union producers aimed at ensuring the longevity of the equipment. These investments, planned long ahead, took place against the background of unfavourable market conditions prevailing in 2023 and in RIP.

(261) The cash flow from 2021 to the RIP showed significant fluctuations driven by volatile market conditions and specific operational limitations of some plants as a result of the postponement of furnaces rebuilds. During period considered, 2022 was the only year in which all sampled Union producers achieved significant profits, depleted partially in the build-up of inventories heading into planned furnaces rebuilds, which led to a positive cashflow. In 2023 and during the RIP, despite experiencing severe losses, cash flows remained positive. This seemingly contradictory situation, particularly evident in the RIP, could be largely attributed to the significant positive cash flow impact resulting from reductions in inventory levels that had been accumulated in 2022.

(262) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The return on investment developed in line with the profitability. It first increased in 2022 before deteriorating in 2023 and even further in the RIP, which made it more difficult for the Union industry to raise capital and grow.

(263) During the period considered the Union industry was only profitable in 2022, after which it returned to being lossmaking. In 2023 and in the RIP, the lossmaking situation of the Union industry coincided with an increase of imports from the PRC at prices below the Union industry’s average sales prices and costs of production.

(264) The Union industry was able to increase its price level in 2022 to achieve a profitable situation. However, in 2023 and in the RIP, the difference between the Union industry sales prices and import prices from the PRC increased. Union prices increased by 10 % during the period considered while import prices from the PRC decreased by 28 % during the same period. Consequently, the import prices of the product under review from the PRC followed an opposite trend to that of the Union industry. As a result, even though the Union industry was forced to sell at a loss, it lost market share to the imports from the PRC between 2021 and the RIP.

(265) Almost all injury indicators showed an overall negative trend throughout the period considered. Production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, profitability, return on investments all deteriorated, in line with decreased sales volumes and market share. In 2022 the Union was able to recover to a certain extent as demand for GFR increased in the wake of the lifting of the COVID-19 measures. However, in 2023 and in the RIP due to the increase in import volume at decreasing prices, the Union industry’s situation deteriorated further as illustrated by its increased losses.

(266) As set out above, other economic indicators such as return on investment were negative during the period considered with the exception of the year 2022. This affected the ability of the Union industry to self-finance operations and to raise capital, thus impeding its growth and even threatening its survival in the medium to long term.

(267) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

(268) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the dumped imports from the PRC caused material injury to the Union industry.

(269) In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. The factors considered by the Commission were imports from third countries other than PRC, the export performance of the Union industry, the increase in cost of raw materials and cost of energy on the Union industry and the contraction in demand.

(270) The Commission examined the evolution of the volume of imports from the country concerned and their impact on the Union industry as required by Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

(271) The investigation showed that, despite the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force and decreasing consumption, the volume of dumped imports undercutting the Union industry’s prices from the PRC increased both in absolute and relative terms during the period considered. Taking 2021 as a reference year, the import volume increased by 51 % while the market share of imports originating in the PRC increased from 6 % in 2021 to 10 % in the RIP.

(272) At the same time, the Union industry saw its market share decreasing by five percentage points during the period considered.

(273) The average unit prices of the dumped imports decreased by 28 % between 2021 and the RIP and were lower than those of the Union industry during the same period.

(274) The Union industry was profitable in 2022 and became loss making afterwards which coincided with the significant decrease in import prices from the PRC. Even after lowering its sales price in 2023 and in the RIP, the Union industry failed to maintain its market share. This price decrease was at the expense of profitability, leading to a loss-making situation.

(275) Based on the above, it was concluded that the price level of the dumped imports from the PRC, had a considerably negative impact on the economic situation of the Union industry and therefore played a decisive role in the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

(276) The deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with an increased presence of dumped imports from the PRC. In a context of a shrinking market, the increased market share of imports from the PRC combined with their low average sales prices had a negative impact on the Union industry’s financial situation. Although the Union industry was able to recover in 2022, it was not able to increase its sales prices sufficiently to fully cover the increased production costs, because of the increased presence of dumped imports of the GFR from the PRC. Hence the Commission concluded that the increase in imports from PRC at dumped prices coincided with the significant deterioration of the situation of the Union industry in 2023, which continued in the RIP.

(277) In view of the above considerations, the Commission established that the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports from the PRC within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

(278) Imports of GFR from third countries other than the PRC originated mainly from Egypt, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom.

(280) The trend in Malaysian imports to the Union from 2021 to the RIP showed a significant decline in both volume and market share, alongside fluctuations in pricing. Import volumes dropped sharply from 136 086 metric tonnes in 2021 to 76 909 metric tonnes in 2023, before a minor recovery to 84 827 tonnes by the RIP. Correspondingly, the market share of Malaysian imports decreased from 15 % to 9 % before slightly improving to 10 %. Although the average price per metric tonne initially rose by 32 % in 2022, there was a significant drop in 2023 and in RIP.

(281) Volumes and market share of imports of GFR originating in Egypt remained stable amid significant pricing fluctuations, especially when compared to Union average prices. Egyptian import volumes showed a slight increase of about 5 % from 2021 to 2022, a decrease of around 10 % in 2023 and a return nearly to original levels by the RIP, maintaining a constant 12 % market share that slightly grew to 13 % in the RIP. Egyptian import prices remained lower than both the Union industry's average prices and the Chinese import prices.

(282) Imports of GFR from the United Kingdom into the Union between 2021 and the RIP showed an increase in volume, and a relatively steady market share. Import volumes from the UK increased from 2021 to 2022, before declining by around 12 % in 2023 and a further 5 % by the RIP. Market share increased from 4 % to 6 % during 2022 and 2023, slightly dropping to 5 % in the RIP. The average price per metric tonne from the UK were at similar or higher levels than the average price of the Union industry, and above the price of imports from the PRC. Import prices from the UK first rose by 31 % from 2021 to 2022 and continued to increase to EUR 1 397 in 2023, before a slight decrease to EUR 1 273 in the RIP.

(283) Imports of GFR from third countries, excluding those previously specified, into the Union during the period considered experienced an increase in volume and in market share that went from 18 % to 20 %. However, average prices from these countries were higher than prices of imports from the PRC.

(284) The analysis of the import data for GFR originating in other third countries shows a mixed picture. Imports from Malaysia decreased significantly in absolute and relative terms during the period considered while priced below the Union industry’s prices. Imports originating in Egypt remained stable while also priced below the Union industry’s average prices. Imports from the United Kingdom, though increasing entered the Union at higher prices in 2023 and the RIP. Imports volumes from other third countries not mentioned above increased in absolute and relative terms during the period considered. All in all, there were no significant imports from third countries that both increased their market share while priced below the Union industry prices during the period considered, and or in the RIP in particular.

(285) In light of the above, the Commission concluded that imports from other third countries did not attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the PRC.

(287) Since 2021, the Union industry's exports gradually increased, though remained small compared to total sales. These exports were largely composed of products of higher technical specifications, which shielded them from direct price competition. Consequently, the Union could achieve higher prices for these GFR products in international markets compared to the Union market. This reflected a strategic focus on niche markets abroad.

(288) Therefore, the increase in export sales did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the country concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry. On the contrary, export sales allowed the Union industry to improve its overall financial situation thanks to the increased sales volume and achieved price levels, which were higher than on the Union market.

(290) The trend in energy prices in the Union during the period considered showed significant increase and eventual stabilization. The sharp increase in 2022, in comparison to 2021, was exacerbated by the consequences of the geopolitical tensions affecting energy supply mainly due to Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. The spike in energy prices significantly impacted production costs of the sampled Union producers. By 2023, prices of energy decreased.

(291) The investigation revealed that the cost of the main raw materials increased substantially in 2022, contributing to a significant rise in the unit sales price as the Union industry could pass these costs on to customers. To the contrary, whereas in 2023 raw material costs continued to increase, the unit sales price declined as the Union industry was unable to pass these additional costs on to customers. In the RIP, while raw material costs decreased in comparison to the costs observed in years 2023 and 2022, the Union market prices dropped even further because Union industry was not able to maintain or increase its prices due to price pressure by dumped imports from China.

(292) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the evolution of energy prices and costs of raw materials did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(293) As noted in recital (245), sales in both the free and captive markets exhibited a similar trend over the period considered, with captive sales experiencing a slower decrease –specifically 7 percentage points less. Therefore, captive sales could not be viewed as a factor that undermined the causal relationship between the dumped imports and their effect on the Union industry.

(294) Although there was some contraction in demand, as explained in recital (171), Chinese imports increased their market share from 6 % in 2021 to 10 % in RIP, while the sales volume and market share of the Union industry declined. In addition, the investigation also concluded on price undercutting and price suppression by Chinese imports.

(295) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the contraction in demand did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry

(296) There was an overall deterioration of the Union industry’s financial situation in 2023 and in RIP. These negative circumstances coincided in time with an increased market share of imports of GFR from the PRC, which were made at dumped prices undercutting the Union industry’s prices and costs despite the existence of anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

(297) Other factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry have also been analysed. In this respect, it was found that imports from other third countries, the export performance of the Union industry, the increase in energy prices, development on captive market and contraction in demand did not attenuate the causal link established between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(298) The investigation established that the Union industry has suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC during the RIP. As explained in the recital (52), during the RIP two Union producers stopped production of GFR altogether due to unfavourable market conditions.

(299) The amendment of measures would allow the Union industry to maintain and/or regain its market share, increase production and capacity utilisation, increase prices to cover cost of production and achieve a level of profitability which would be expected under normal conditions of competition. On this basis, the Union industry would need to return to a sustainable situation which allow it to make future investments.

(300) Maintaining the measures at the same level would likely lead to a further loss of market share and deterioration of profitability, which turned negative in 2023 and in the RIP. This would possibly cause additional closures of production facilities and dismissals thus endangering the viability of the Union industry.

(301) The Commission therefore concluded that the amendment of anti-dumping measures on imports of GFR originating in the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(302) No unrelated importers came forward and cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply.

(303) During the investigation only two users, Amiblu Holding GmbH and F.S. Fehrer Automotive GmbH, came forward and provided highly deficient questionnaire replies. The Commission requested the parties concerned to provide the outstanding information; however, they did not comply with this request within the prescribed timeframe.

(304) Upon initiation, another user, PROXIM, expressed objections to the potential amendment of the measures. PROXIM asserted that many users were not aware of the investigation, which prevented them from submitting the questionnaire within the designated timeframe.

(305) However, the Commission took all necessary steps to ensure that all known users and unrelated importers mentioned in the request were duly notified. Additionally, a Notice of Initiation, was published in the Official Journal, informing all interested parties of the investigation. Questionnaires destined to users and importers were also published on the case website (119).

(306) In its submission, the users Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozo es Müszakiszovet-gyàrto Bt. (‘Tolnatext’) and Dr. Günther Kast GmbH & Co., which are part of the KAST Group, asserted that the implementation of additional trade measures would adversely affect an efficient supply chain. According to Tolnatext, despite being protected by the existing measures, Union producers have not increased their capacity to supply the Union market with GFR to adequately meet users’ demands. Moreover, they noted that certain rovings such as low-tex rovings are not produced within the Union, and, for some, the technical specifications required by users are not met by Union producers’ which makes users extremely dependent on the availability of specified products from alternative sources. Lastly, users in the Union were negatively impacted by the decrease in PRC’s export tax rebate and with increasingly concentrated oligopoly of a few Union producers. Similar comments were submitted by PROXIM in their submission concerning second FOP Note.

(307) The investigation determined that these claims were unfounded. As highlighted in recital (260), the Union industry has made substantial investments despite challenging market conditions. However, further capacity expansion necessitates long-term capital commitments, which rely on maintaining a level playing field where competitive producers can anticipate a fair return on investments. The Union industry was also faced with unfair imports from other countries such as Egypt (120) and difficult market conditions, including the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic.

(308) GFR is to a high extent standardised product. Despite various differences in appearance and potential differences in final applications, all different types of GFR share the same basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics and are essentially used for the same purposes. Hence users of GFR can change supply sources as alternative supply sources are available outside of the PRC, including Malaysia, Egypt, the UK and other sources. Furthermore, the Union industry has the capacity, capability and technology for the production of many required types such as low-tex rovings. Union industry has been making an investment in innovation and has consistently worked with downstream industries in R&D efforts to tailor products effectively. Unfortunately, as noted in recital (327), such investments could not always take place due to the fierce competition linked to dumped imports from in the PRC.

(309) Even with the reduction in PRC’s export tax rebate in November 2024, large volumes of imports continued to enter the Union market. This suggested that the rebate change alone did not significantly impact market dynamics. Concerns regarding market concentration were analysed. In this respect, the Commission noted that, in general, regulatory bodies carefully scrutinise mergers and acquisitions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Such matters, however, fall outside the scope of the present trade investigation. On this basis, these claims were rejected.

(310) User OPTIPLAN GmbH submitted comments after the deadline specified in the Notice of Initiation, which requires all interested parties to submit their views, information and supporting evidence within 37 days of the Notice’s publication. In its submission OPTIPLAN submitted that an increase in the combined anti-dumping and countervailing duties would have an impact on its activities as it would disrupt its supply chain due to the limited supply and need to qualify new suppliers. OPTIPLAN also claimed that higher measures would also increase its costs.

(311) While OPTIPLAN did not provide any evidence to support its claim relating to the shortage of supply, the Commission refers to recital (307) where this issue is already addressed. In the absence of questionnaire reply by OPTIPLAN, the claim relating to costs could not be assessed. Therefore, these comments were rejected.

(312) Following disclosure, PROXIM argued that the Commission did not duly take into account the situation and arguments of Union users of glass fibre reinforcements (GFR). It submitted that users are in a significantly more difficult competitive position than Union producers, particularly those that are vertically integrated. PROXIM further claimed that the Commission failed to provide adequate assistance to users to facilitate their effective participation in the investigation, which resulted in their concerns not being properly reflected in the findings.

(313) The Commission recalled that all known users and unrelated importers identified in the request were duly informed of the initiation of the review. A Notice of Initiation was published in the Official Journal, questionnaires for users and importers were made available online, and all parties were invited to provide comments and request hearings. Several users, including PROXIM, did in fact make submissions, and parties who requested a hearing were granted one. The Commission therefore concluded that users were given every opportunity to participate, and that their arguments were taken into account in line with the procedural requirements.

(314) PROXIM also argued that, according to publicly available information, the Government of the People’s Republic of China reduced in late 2024 the level of export tax rebates for certain categories of non-metallic mineral products, including potentially relevant tariff lines for GFR, from 13 % to 9 %. In its view, this development effectively lowered the level of subsidisation on the side of the PRC and should have been taken into account when establishing the level of countervailing measures.

(315) With regard to the reference to the reduction of the PRC’s export tax rebate in late 2024, the Commission noted that large volumes of dumped imports from the PRC continued to enter the Union market even after this rebate reduction. As set out in the investigation, the rebate change did not materially alter market dynamics, which remained characterised by significant price undercutting and price suppression by Chinese imports. Moreover, the rebate change occurred after the review investigation period and therefore could not be factored into the determination of the level of subsidisation in this proceeding.

(316) Furthermore, PROXIM claimed that the current level of measures risks harming downstream industries in the Union by increasing their costs in comparison to competitors outside the Union. In particular, it pointed to the risk of reduced competitiveness of Union users and possible relocation of downstream activities outside the Union. PROXIM therefore requested that the Commission ensure a more balanced approach between the protection of Union producers and the interests of Union users, so as to avoid disproportionate harm to the latter.

(317) As concerns the claim that the measures would increase users’ costs and reduce their competitiveness compared to operators outside the Union, the Commission found that any cost impact is expected to be limited given the moderate share of glass fibre reinforcements in total production costs and the availability of alternative sources of supply. The Commission concluded that the measures would not materially affect the competitiveness of Union users nor lead to relocation of downstream activities. Therefore, the Commission rejected this claim.

(318) On the basis of the information available to the Commission and in the absence of meaningful reply by users and importers, there was no evidence contradicting the conclusion that any negative impact of the measures on unrelated importers and users is expected to be limited and will not outweigh the positive effect of measures on Union producers.

(319) Companies that supply epoxy resin to the Union industry Olin Epoxy & Chemicals International (US), Westlake Epoxy BV (NL) and Spolek pro chemickou a hutní výrobu, akciová společnost (CZ), expressed their support for the implementation of the measures. They emphasized the importance of having all key components and materials within this value chain located in the Union to ensure resilience in strategic sectors. They further asserted that maintaining such a presence will bolster the supply chain and enhance the Union's capacity to innovate and effectively respond to market demands.

(320) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to amend measures on imports of GFR originating in China.

(321) As concluded in recital (267), the Union industry was suffering material injury in the review investigation period. Consequently, the current level of the measures is no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing injury.

(322) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, it is evident that the existing measures are not achieving the intended results in removing the injury. Therefore, the level of existing measures should be amended to prevent injury caused to the Union industry by dumped.

(323) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

(324) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic Regulation.

(325) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission considered the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country under investigation, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

(326) With regard to the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the PRC, the Commission looked at the profit achieved by the sampled Union producers over a period of 10 years. It was noted that imports from China were present on the Union market during the entire 10 years and therefore it was not possible to establish a profit margin on the basis of any of these years prior to the increase of imports from the PRC. Also, the year 2022 was found to be heavily influenced by the post-COVID-19 economic recovery and did not appear appropriate to set the target profit. Therefore, it was considered that the year 2016 was appropriate as it was the most recent year when the Union industry operated under normal market conditions following the imposition of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in 2014. In year 2016 Union industry achieved profit of 12,28 % while imports from the PRC accounted for 8 % of the Union consumption (121).

(327) The Union industry provided evidence that its level of investments, research and development (R&D) and innovation during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition. The Commission verified this information during the on-spot verification visits by checking the company’s internal records relating to investment plans, management decisions and financial statements. The claims of the Union industry were found to be warranted. To reflect this in the target profit, the Commission calculated the difference between investments, R&D and innovation (‘IRI’) expenses under normal conditions of competition as provided by the Union Industry and verified by the Commission with the actual IRI expenses over the period considered. Based on verified information regarding investments which could not be implemented during the period considered, the target profit margins were increased by between 0,26 % and 1,99 % depending on the sampled producers.

(328) Hence, the target profit which was established in this investigation and in accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation ranged between 12,54 % and 14,27 % depending on the situation found in each of the sampled companies.

(329) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of the like product for the Union industry by applying the respective target profit margins to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the review investigation period.

(330) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure. Based on the submitted information, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established that there were no additional costs of compliance with such conventions during the RIP.

(331) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in country concerned, anti-dumping and countervailing duties excluded, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value. As explained in recital (230), in the case of sampled exporting producer Taishan Fiberglass Inc., sales made under the special supply agreement with Union producer European Owens Corning Fiberglas SPRL were excluded from the injury margin calculations.

(333) Following disclosure, Glass Fibre Europe pointed to certain clerical errors in the calculation of the injury margin. Upon reviewing those comments, the Commission identified and corrected the errors in the calculations, which resulted in an adjustment to the injury margin that were disclosed to the cooperating Chinese exporting producers.

(334) In accordance with Article 24(1) and Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (122) and in order to avoid double counting, the Commission first imposed the definitive countervailing duty in place. The countervailing duties remained unchanged, with exception of the countervailing duty of Jiangsu as for this company the duty (4,9 %) was set at the level of the injury margin in the original investigation. This was followed by the remaining definitive anti-dumping duty, which corresponded to the relevant dumping margin reduced by the amount of the countervailing duty, and in the case of Jiangsu reduced by the amount of the subsidy margin (5,8 %). As the investigation established that the dumping margins were lower than the injury margins, anti-dumping duties are to be imposed at the level of the dumping margins. Since the dumping margin was reduced with the entire amount of subsidisation, there was no double counting issue.

(336) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during these investigations in respect to these companies. These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the product under investigation originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in People’s Republic of China’.

(337) A company may request the application of these individual duty rate if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (123). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(338) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping and countervailing duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in People’s Republic of China’.

(339) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States should carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(340) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume, in particular after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated, provided that the conditions for doing so are met. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(341) To ensure a proper enforcement of the duties, the duties for all other imports originating in People’s Republic of China should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but also to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

(342) Exporting producers that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the RIP should be able to request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the IP; (ii) it is not related to an exporting producer that did so; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

(343) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1452 shall be replaced by the following table:

Article 2

Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1452 may be amended to add new exporting producers from the People’s Republic of China and make them subject to the appropriate weighted average anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. A new exporting producer shall provide evidence that:

(a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) during the review investigation period (1.10.2023 to 30.9.2024);

(b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, and which could have cooperated in the original investigation; and

(c) it has either actually exported the product concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 November 2025.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 of 9 March 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 67, 15.3.2011, p. 2, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/248/oj).

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1379/2014 of 16 December 2014 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain filament glass fibre products originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 248/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2014/1379/oj).

(4) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/724 of 24 April 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 107, 25.4.2017, p. 4, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/724/oj).

(5) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/328 of 24 February 2021 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 65, 25.2.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/328/oj).

(6) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452 of 13 July 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 179, 14.7.2023, p. 57, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/1452/oj).

(7) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt (OJ L 201, 25.6.2020, p. 10, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/870/oj).

(8) Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-subsidy measures applicable to imports of continuous filament glass fibre products (‘GFR’) originating in the People's Republic of China, (OJ C, C/2024/5343, 30.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5343/oj).

(9) Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of continuous filament glass

fibre products (‘GFR’) originating in Bahrain, Egypt and Thailand (OJ C, C/2025/1135, 17.2.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1135/oj).

(10) Notice of initiation of an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of continuous filament glass fibre products (‘GFR’) originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ C, C/2024/5344, 30.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5344/oj).

(11) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/2447/oj).

(12) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2749.

(13) OJ L 107, 25.4.2017, recital (49).

(14) OJ L 179, 14.7.2023, recital (183).

(15) Based on data submitted in the sampling exercise.

(16) See Shandong glass fiber: in 2025, the output of glass fiber and products will reach 1 million tons, EqualOcean. Available at: https://equalocean.com/briefing/20220623230146629.

(17) See the company’s presentation website, where they state that it ‘plans to invest a total of 5 billion yuan to build a glass fiber production base with an annual output of 500 000 tons. The first phase of the project will build two large-scale pool kiln production lines with a total capacity of 200 000 tons and two chopped strand mat composite material production lines with a total capacity of 10 000 tons. The first 85 000-ton production line was ignited and put into production on November 24, 2017, and the second 120 000-ton production line was ignited and put into production on June 27, 2022 ’. Available at http://sanleiglassfiber.com/?aboutus/.

(18) See the website of China Composite Materials Industry Association, available at Annual output of 600,000 tons of glass fiber! Taishan Glass Fiber Taiyuan Project is progressing in an orderly manner_China Composite Materials Industry Association official website.

(19) See https://www.cnbm.com.cn/EN/000000160001/68057.html and https://www.jushi.com/business/group/huaian-company-847.html.

(20) https://pdf.irpocket.com/C5214/cXlT/CQ9H/RQLv.pdf consulted on 22 August 2025.

(21) https://www.ft.com/content/345784e3-a9ce-4808-8f02-8919920c0ac6 consulted on 22 August 2025.

(22) See footnote 4, recital 95.

(23) See footnote 5.

(24) See footnote 7.

(25) https://www.jeccomposites.com/news/spotted-by-jec/jushi-egypt-completes-the-construction-of-its-fourth-glass-fiber-production-line/?news_type=announcement,business&tax_product=glass-fiber consulted on 22 August 2025.

(26) See footnote 6, recital 111.

(27) See footnote 9.

(28) https://www.ft.com/content/16031b21-cb2f-40c7-a77d-1ac061196264 consulted on 22 August 2025.

(29) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2022) 360 final of 20.7.2022.

(30) https://glassfibreeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GFE_EU-Economic-Security-Strategy-and-the-Role-of-Glass-Fibre-June-2023.pdf consulted on 22 August 2025.

(31) https://glassfibreeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GFE_LCA-report-2023-February-2023.pdf consulted on 21 August 2025.

(32) Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj).

(33) Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1785/oj).

(34) https://www.avk-tv.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AVK_MarktReport_2025_long_final_en-1.pdf consulted on 22 August 2025.

(35) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/492/oj; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452 of 13 July 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain continuous filament glass fibre products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/1452/oj; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 of 11 October 2024 imposing provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2673/oj; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357 of 23 January 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended imports cosigned from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/357/oj.

(36) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 161-162, 167; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 68; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 70; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 139-140.

(37) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 116-119; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 53; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 54; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 76-81.

(38) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 120-122; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 56; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recitals 57; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 82-88; While the right to appoint and to remove key management personnel in SOEs by the relevant State authorities, as provided for in the Chinese legislation, can be considered to reflect the corresponding ownership rights, CCP cells in enterprises, state owned and private alike, represent another important channel through which the State can interfere with business decisions. According to the PRC’s company law, a CCP organisation is to be established in every company (with at least three CCP members as specified in the CCP Constitution) and the company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organisation. In the past, this requirement appears not to have always been followed or strictly enforced. However, since at least 2016 the CCP has reinforced its claims to control business decisions in SOEs as a matter of political principle. The CCP is also reported to exercise pressure on private companies to put ‘patriotism’ first and to follow party discipline. In 2017, it was reported that party cells existed in 70 % of some 1,86 million privately owned companies, with growing pressure for the CCP organisations to have a final say over the business decisions within their respective companies. These rules are of general application throughout the Chinese economy, across all sectors, including to the producers of the product under review and the suppliers of their inputs.

(39) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 123-138; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 60; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 61; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 89-109.

(40) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 139-142; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 62; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 63; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 110-115.

(41) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 143-145; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 63; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 64; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 116-118.

(42) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, recitals 146-155; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 64; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673, recital 65; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/357, recitals 119-133.

(43) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024, SWD(2024) 91 final, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2024)91&lang=en, including the previous version of the document: Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 20 December 2017, SWD(2017) 483 final/2, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)483&lang=en.

(44) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 53.

(45) Ibid.

(46) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452, recital 47.

(47) Opinion of the General Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Further Deepening the Reform on the Power System (Zhong Fa [2015] No 9); The Notice on Taking Efforts on the Construction of Power Market in 2017 of Shandong Economy an Information Technology Committee, LJXDL [2017] No 93; Notice on Amending the 2017 Direct Electricity Trading Rules of the National Energy Administration Shandong Supervision Office LJNSC [2017], No 36; Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/1690, recital 461; Commission Implementing Regulation 2021/328, recital 137.

(48) Report – Chapter 9, pp. 257-260.

(49) Report – Chapter 6, pp. 139, 149-152, 156-160, 165-167 and 169-171.

(50) See at: https://www.jushi.com/about (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(51) See at: https://www.ctgf.com/channels/4.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(52) See at: https://www.cpicfiber.com/channels/2.html# (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(53) See at: https://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2024-08-28/doc-incmesvn3606747.shtml (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(54) See Art. 33 of the CCP Constitution, Article 19 of the Chinese Company Law. See also the Report, Chapter 3, p. 47-50.

(55) See at: http://www.cfia.xin/page61?article_id=14 (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(56) See CFGIA Articles of Association, Article 3, available at: http://www.cfia.xin/page61?article_id=14 (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(57) Ibid.

(58) See CFGIA Articles of Association, Article 34, available at: http://www.cfia.xin/page61?article_id=14 (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(59) See at: http://www.cfia.xin/page61?article_id=13 (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(60) See Section III, Subsection 3 of the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Material Industry, available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/29/content_5665166.htm (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(61) See at: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/fzggwl/202312/t20231229_1362999.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(62) See at: https://www.ncsti.gov.cn/kjdt/tzgg/202312/t20231225_145433.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(63) See the Shandong Province 14th FYP on construction materials, Chapter IV, Section 4; available at: https://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20211129/1190544.shtml (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(64) See at : https://www.cq.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkml/szfwj/qtgw/202203/t20220318_10526318.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(65) See Guangxi Three-year Action Plan on Strategic and Emerging Industries, available at: http://guoqing.china.com.cn/zhuanti/2022-06/24/content_78288713.htm (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(66) See Hubei 14th FYP on High Quality Development of New Materials Industry, available at: https://jxt.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/xxgkml/jhgh/202203/t20220325_4056642.shtml (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(67) See Zhejiang 14th FYP on Developing New Materials, available at: https://fzggw.zj.gov.cn/art/2021/6/24/art_1229539890_4671248.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).

(68) See at: https://www.cnbm.com.cn/CNBM/000000020002/66821.html (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(69) See at: https://www.jushi.com/news/party-building (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(70) See the company’s Articles of Association, available at: https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H2_AN202203181553440430_1.pdf?1647632338000.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(71) See at: https://www.ctgf.com/contents/90/1677.html (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(72) See at: https://www.ctgf.com/contents/91/1625.html (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(73) Ibid.

(74) See CPIC 2024 annual report, p.42, available at: http://file.finance.sina.com.cn/211.154.219.97:9494/MRGG/CNSESZ_STOCK/2025/2025-3/2025-03-27/10811471.PDF (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(75) See at: http://guoqing.china.com.cn/zhuanti/2022-06/24/content_78288713.htm (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(76) See at: https://jjxxw.cq.gov.cn/zwgk_213/zcjd/wzjd/202312/t20231204_12644698.html (accessed on 27 June 2025).

(77) Ibid.

(78) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 153-157 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 82-84; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 67.

(79) See Section VIII.16, available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/08/content_5683972.htm#msdynttrid=WRmyf07ph0z74SHmXoOLKjRWl09BdZ4lGdYp9fiI9xU (accessed on 18 April 2025).

(80) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income.

(81) https://www.xinyiglass.com/en/floatglass/list.aspx.

(82) Wanda New Material (Thailand) Company Limited (Private) and Thai United Glass Fibre Company Limited (Private).

(83) DBD DataWarehouse+.

(84) Glass Fibers in Turkey Trade | The Observatory of Economic Complexity. Available at https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/glass-fibers/reporter/tur.

(85) Glass Fibers in Thailand Trade | The Observatory of Economic Complexity. Available at https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/glass-fibers/reporter/tha.

(86) http://wandafiber.com/about-us/.

(87) http://www.thaiunited.co.th/,

(88) See data on Şişecam Chemicals, when Şişecam Elyaf San. A.Ş was grouped under the Chemical branch of the group. Availabe at https://www.sisecam.com/en/investor-relations/presentations-and-bulletins/annual-reports/digital-annual-report/2022/index.html#sisecam-at-a-galance/4.

(89) Based on data published on Multimarket Insight - Global Pyrophyllite Professional Survey Report 2024, Forecast to 2029 and available in the open file.

(90) https://multimarketinsight.com/.

(91) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2163 of 14 August 2024 imposing a provisional anti- dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/2163, 16.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2163/oj).

(92) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 of 11 October 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China recital (106); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2011 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of optical fibre cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, recital (338); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/291 of 13 February 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of decor paper originating in the People’s Republic of China, recital (162).

(93) https://www.volza.com/p/wollastonite/import/import-in-turkey/.

(94) Defined as ‘Waste and scrap of closed fabrics of rovings of glass fibres, mechanically bonded (excl. woven)’, see https://www.tariffnumber.com/2025/70196210.

(95) According to the European Customs Portal, this is defined as ‘Closed fabrics of rovings of glass fibres, mechanically bonded (excl. woven)’; see https://www.tariffnumber.com/2025/701962.

(96) Published in the Multimarket Insights and available on the open file.

(97) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Structure-of-Earnings-Statistics-2023-53700.

(98) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(99) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(100) https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/investmentguide/pages/cost-of-doing-business.aspx.

(101) comtrade.un.org.

(102) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Structure-of-Earnings-Statistics-2023-53700.

(103) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(104) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(105) https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/investmentguide/pages/cost-of-doing-business.aspx.

(106) Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/755/oj). Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation considers that domestic prices in those countries cannot be used for the purpose of determining normal value.

(107) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt, recital (245).

(108) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Structure-of-Earnings-Statistics-2023-53700.

(109) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Labour-Input-Indices-Quarter-I:-January-March,-2024-53682&dil=2.

(110) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(111) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/envir?lang=en&subtheme=nrg.nrg_price.nrg_pc&display=list&sort=category&extractionId=nrg_pc_205.

(112) https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/investmentguide/pages/cost-of-doing-business.aspx.

(113) https://www.sisecam.com/en/investor-relations/annual-reports.

(114) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 of 11 October 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/2673, 14.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2673/oj).

(115) See judgment of 7 March 2024, AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ v European Commission, C-725/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:217, paras. 67 and 72.

(116) Judgment of 14 March 1990, Gestetner Holdings plc v Council and Commission of the European Communities, C-156/87, ECLI:EU:C:1990:116, para. 31.

(117) Judgment of 7 March 2024, AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ v European Commission, C-725/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:217, para. 66.

(118) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (OJ L 108, 6.4.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/492/oj), recital (272).

(119) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2749.

(120) See footnote 7.

(121) See footnote 7.

(122) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, (OJ L 176 30.6.2016, p. 55, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1037/oj).

(123) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate G, Wetstraat 170 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.