Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2351 of 18 November 2025 imposing a definitive safeguard measure with regard to imports of certain ferro-alloying elements

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 (2), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (3), and in particular Articles 112 and 113(3), second paragraph, thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 19 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) published a Notice of Initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning imports of silicon and manganese-based alloying elements (4).

(2) The investigation was initiated following a request from three Member States (France, Poland and Slovakia, supported by Spain). The analysis of the request showed that the rising trend in imports of certain silicon and manganese-based alloying elements and the conditions in which they take place cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry.

(3) In order to obtain the information necessary to carry out an in-depth assessment, the Commission published questionnaires for Union producers, exporters, importers, and users of the product under investigation on 19 December 2024 and invited interested parties to make submissions before 17 January 2025. On 9 January 2025, the Commission published the non-confidential version of the application containing key import statistics and available injury indicators.

(4) The Commission received 106 questionnaire replies and 61 free submissions at initiation stage and during the rebuttals phase from Union producers, exporters, importers, users, associations and third country authorities, and it held hearings with 22 interested parties.

(5) The Commission conducted a thorough verification of the information provided by Union producers. To this end, three Union producers were selected for an on-spot verification based on their production volume of like or directly competing products during the period concerned and their geographical location in the Union. The three selected producers represent 85% of the total Union production and are located in France, Slovakia and Poland.

(6) Several interested parties claimed that the Commission failed to disclose the evidence on which the initiation of the safeguard investigation was based in an adequate and timely manner. It was claimed that by failing to do this, interested parties were not allowed to fully exercise their rights of defence.

(7) Contrary to these claims, the application included all the essential data regarding the increase in imports. Furthermore, the Commission considered that, in addition, the main elements and evidence available were adequately summarised both in the Notice of Initiation that was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the notification of the investigation to the WTO pursuant to Article 12.1(a) of the WTO Safeguard Agreement.

(8) The Commission therefore considered that it fulfilled its legal obligations to adequately protect the rights of defence of interested parties. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 all interested parties who requested a hearing within the time limit set were granted such hearing and were given an additional opportunity to submit their comments during the rebuttal phase. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission duly considered and took into account the comments submitted within the deadlines by all interested parties, in writing or orally during the hearing sessions.

(9) On 18 July 2025, the Commission sent a proposal to consider the imposition of provisional measure. However, as a result of the discussions within the Safeguard Committee, the Commission has decided not to impose a provisional safeguard measure but to continue the investigation.

(10) On 18 July 2025, the Commission having made a preliminary determination, and in accordance with Article 113(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement), notified the EEA Joint Committee that a safeguard measure was justified under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement. A meeting of the EEA Joint Committee was held on 24 July 2025, where the notification of the preliminary determination with regard to imports of certain ferro-alloying elements was discussed. On 8 August 2025, the EEA EFTA States sent a response to the Commission’s notification to the EEA Joint Committee. On 21 August 2025, the Commission informed the EEA Joint Committee of its intention not to impose provisional measure and to continue the investigation. On 19 September 2025, the Commission informed the EEA Joint Committee on the status of the investigation. On 10 October 2025, the Commission notified the EEA Joint Committee in accordance with Article 113(1) of the EEA Agreement that a safeguard measure was justified under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement.

(11) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings. The Commission continued its investigation with regard to Union interest and carried out an analysis of the situation of the user industry.

(12) In order to obtain the most recent information for its final determination, on 4 August 2025, the Commission requested the association representing the Union producers to submit an updated supplementary questionnaire covering the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, ‘the most recent period’ or ‘MRP’.

(13) On 16 September 2025, the investigation was extended by a period of 2 months with a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (5).

(14) The product concerned as defined in the Notice of Initiation is silicon and manganese-based alloys, namely (i) silicon, (ii) ferro-manganese, (iii) ferro-silicon, (iv) ferro-silico-manganese, (v) ferro-silico-magnesium and (vi) calcium-silicon.

(15) The Commission determined that all types of silicon and manganese-based alloys produced by Union producers, referred to as ‘the like product’ are like or are directly competing with the product concerned. Both the domestic and imported products possess the same fundamental physical, technical, and chemical characteristics. They serve identical purposes and are offered through similar or identical sales channels to customers who may acquire them from both domestic and foreign suppliers. Accordingly, there exists a significant level of competition between the product concerned and the one produced by Union producers.

(16) After the initiation, several interested parties claimed that there is not one single product concerned but several products concerned. Hence, they questioned the global analysis of the relevant import trends and injury indicators together for all product types under investigation. Parties argued that the analysis should have differentiated between silicon and manganese-based alloys, notably because of the various degrees of interchangeability.

(17) In response to these claims, the Commission conducted a further analysis based on the Union producers’ questionnaire replies and sought additional information during the verification visits to determine whether there is interrelation, interchangeability and competition among the different product types (6). The various different types of silicon and manganese-based alloys share notable similarities in their production techniques and industrial applications (7). For instance, ferro-silicon, ferro-manganese and ferro-silico-manganese play overlapping roles in steelmaking. They are connected primarily by their function as deoxidizers, which enhances the quality and properties of the final alloyed product. Additionally, they share common raw materials, namely iron, silicon and manganese. In the steel industry, ferro-manganese and ferro-silico-manganese are often used interchangeably. When a specific steel grade requires both manganese and silicon, ferro-manganese can be replaced by ferro-silico-manganese. Steel producers frequently combine these alloys to achieve specific chemical properties in steel, optimising both performance and cost. Calcium-silicon and various ferro-alloys have overlapping but not entirely interchangeable roles in steelmaking and foundry operations. While all these materials are used to modify or enhance the properties of molten metal, their chemical characteristics and metallurgical functions differ significantly, which limits their ability to be directly substituted for one another.

(18) As regards silicon, there is some overlap between the ferro-alloys and silicon. However, the aluminium industry primarily favours pure silicon due to its compatibility with aluminium properties, while ferro-silicon is only used in niche or secondary aluminium applications where some iron content is acceptable or necessary. Ferro-alloys are alloying agents added in small volumes to improve properties of steel and are a minor cost component in the steel product. Silicon on the other hand is a core raw material used mainly in the aluminium industry, but also in the chemical industry, in particular for the manufacture of silicones.

(19) In addition, the cost of production of silicon is significantly higher (by more than 60% on average) than that for ferro-alloys. The distinction is also reflected in the classification under the Harmonized System (HS). Silicon is classified under Chapter 28 of the HS/EU Combined Nomenclature (CN), while ferro-alloys are classified under Chapter 72. Therefore, the substitutability between silicon and ferro-alloys is limited and it is thus concluded that silicon does not directly compete with the ferro-alloys.

(21) In view of the decreasing imports in absolute terms, silicon was excluded from the product scope.

(22) In addition, calcium-silicon was excluded from the product scope due to a lack of production of this product group in the Union, as detailed in Section 7.

(23) Therefore, these two product groups were excluded from the product scope and the analysis for the final determination has been carried out for certain ferro-alloys, the ‘product concerned’.

(24) The producers of like or directly competing products within the Union included Ferroglobe, Comilog, OFZ, Realloys, RW Silicium, Xeal, TDR Legure, and ASK Metallurgy. Most of the Union producers are members of the Association of European ferro-alloys producers (‘Euroalliages’). The industry association represents 97% of the Union’s silicon and manganese-based alloys production. Their members are located in France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Spain.

(25) On behalf of their members, the industry association informed the Commission that it supports the opening of a safeguard investigation, as well as the adoption of a measure as the Union producers are facing exceptional difficulties due to high import pressure fuelled by growing global overcapacity and the closing of other major markets due to trade defence measures.

(26) The Commission requested the eight Union producers identified in the application and as indicated above in recital (24) to submit questionnaire replies. Furthermore, on 4 August 2025, the Commission requested the Union producers to submit an updated supplementary questionnaire and received replies from Ferroglobe, OFZ, Realloys, Xeal, Comilog and RW Silicium.

(27) As explained under recitals 17, 18 and 19, the Commission found that ferro-alloys and silicon are not directly competing products, due to differences in costs of production, their applications and HS classification. On this basis, the Union producers of the like or directly competing products were defined as the producers of ferro-alloys.

(28) There are seven producers of the like and directly competing products in the Union (Ferroglobe, OFZ, Realloys, Xeal, TDR Legure, Comilog and ASK Metallurgy), and all of them completed the questionnaire. As stated above in recital (5) three Union producers were selected for verification visits.

(29) Based on information from Eurostat, as well as information submitted by the Union producers, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the increase in imports of the product concerned over the period 2019-2024 (‘the period concerned’) and also considered import trends in the MRP. The Commission decided to start the period concerned in 2019 so that the findings are not tainted by possible market disturbances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To comply with Union obligations regarding imports from Ukraine (8) and under the Economic Partnership Agreement with Kenya (9), imports from these countries have been excluded from this investigation. Kenya did not export the product concerned to the EU during the period concerned. Therefore, in all that follows, imports do not include imports from Ukraine as those imports are not covered by the present measure.

(30) The Commission established the Union consumption by adding the sales of the Union industry in the Union and the imports into the Union. The information on imports was sourced from Eurostat.

(33) In the MRP the imports continued to decrease as in 2024, however, imports remained high and higher than a previous historical peak in 2017. 2021 had a higher level of annual imports than 2022 in view of the economic recovery post-COVID-19 leading to historical high consumption. In sum, since 2021, imports remain at elevated levels, with small fluctuations from year to year. The most recent declining trend is not sharp enough to detract from the continuation of an increased level of imports overall. In reply to the comments, the Commission also noted that the legal requirement is not that imports ‘are increasing’ at the moment the determination is made or at the end of the period concerned. Rather, the requirement is that the product ‘is being imported in increased quantities’. Given the levels of imports in the 2021- MRP period, compared to the prior period and that the described fluctuations within the 2021 - MRP period are several times smaller in magnitude than the increase compared to the preceding part of the period concerned (2019, 2020), the conclusion is warranted that the product is being imported in increased quantities.

(34) In addition, imports increased significantly in relation to the Union production, rising by 104% between 2019 and 2024 and by 126% when compared to the MRP. The most substantial increase of 105% was observed between 2022 and 2023. In relative terms imports also declined rather than increased in 2024 compared to 2023. However, despite that decline, relative imports in 2024 remain at a level above that of 2022 and thus at a level higher than that of all years in the period concerned, except 2023. Therefore, in relative terms, despite the most recent decrease, the product is still being imported in significantly increased quantities. A much stronger decline would be needed for that to no longer be the case.

(35) Imports also increased in relation to the Union consumption rising by 23% between 2019 and 2024 and by 22% when compared to the MRP. The Union consumption, after a few years of fluctuation, is continuously decreasing since 2022, making this relative increase more prominent.

(36) The Commission therefore concludes that there has been a notable increase in imports of the product concerned, both in absolute and more clearly on relative terms. This conclusion is derived from a comprehensive analysis of the data over the entire period of investigation, not simply end-to-end points of the period 2019-2024. It is also reinforced by examining the relevant trends that emerged throughout this period and in the MRP.

(37) The Commission has reached the conclusion that the significant increase in ferro-alloy imports into the Union is a direct consequence of unforeseen developments, that not only create but also intensify imbalances in the international trade of the product concerned.

(38) In 2023, the existing global capacity was estimated at around 46 million tonnes while the global consumption was 27,6 million tonnes. Therefore, already in 2023 there was about 18 million tonnes of overcapacity. In addition, for the coming years a further 9 million tonnes of capacity is estimated to become online. This amounts to a total future overcapacity of around 27 million tonnes corresponding to around 16 times total EU demand (10).

(39) As a result of this global overcapacity the global prices of the ferro-alloys have been on a decreasing trend albeit with some fluctuation since 2020. As explained in recital (61) below, ferro-alloy prices in the Union are influenced by the price set by major exporting countries such as China and India.

(40) The Union market is an attractive market for the exporting country producers due to its size and price levels. The Union is a leading consumer of certain alloys and operates as a highly open market. It consumes around 21% of the worldwide production, outpacing Japan (12%), North America (11%), and South Korea (8%). Furthermore, the Union market is also attractive for the product concerned, particularly in terms of pricing when compared to other major markets. According to the data (11) provided by the Union industry, prices in the Union are consistently higher than those in other markets, such as India and China, with the exception of the US. During the 2023-2024 period, the average delivered price in the EU was 35% higher than that in China, while prices in India were, on average, 20% lower than EU prices.

(41) When there is overcapacity on a global scale, producers face excess supply that they seek to offload in markets where they can achieve higher prices. The Union, as a result of its higher prices, became an appealing destination for this surplus product.

(42) The above effect has been worsened by trade-restrictive practices in third country markets. In the recent years, many countries have increasingly used trade policies and trade defence instruments to protect domestic producers. New and recently extended trade defence measures imposed on origins from the most important exporters into the Union are listed in the footnote (12). The total volume of imports concerned by these measures is approximately 168 000 tonnes, representing 48% of the total Union production in 2024.

(43) The latest of such measures were imposed in March 2025 by the US on imports of ferro- silicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan and Malaysia (13). During the period concerned, these countries were also among the largest importers of ferro-silicon into the Union, and with a closure of the US ferro-silicon market from these origins an additional 73 000 tonnes may be diverted to the Union market. This diversion would account for 21% of total Union production of the product concerned in 2024, causing additional injury to Union producers and leading to a further decrease in market share.

(44) In addition, the US administration has introduced so-called reciprocal tariffs of varying levels on the imports from its trading partners. As regards imports from the Union, it applies a maximum, all-inclusive 15% tariff for products subject to reciprocal tariffs, including certain ferro-alloys.