Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2589 of 18 December 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of choline chloride originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 31 October 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of choline chloride originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 17 September 2024 by Balchem Italia Srl (‘Balchem’) and Taminco BV (‘Taminco’) (‘the complainants’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of choline chloride in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) The Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/92 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 2 June 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days.

(5) Although the invitation for comments was limited to the accuracy of the calculations (4), three exporting producers, Jinan Pharmaceuticals (‘Jinan’), Shandong Aocter Feed Additives Co. Ltd. (‘Aocter’), Shandong FY Feed Technology Co., Ltd. (‘FY Feed’) and its related company, Shandong Yinfeng Biological Technology Co., Ltd (‘YB’), and one unrelated importer, Kirsch Pharma GmbH (‘Kirsch’), submitted a number of comments on substance. These comments were subsequently repeated after the provisional disclosure and are addressed below in Sections 1.4 and 2.2 below.

(6) On 30 June 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of choline chloride originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1288 (5) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), one unrelated importer, Kirsch, and three exporting producers, Jinan, FY Feed and Aocter, and the China Chamber of Import/Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-products (‘CFNA’) (6) filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

(8) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the unrelated importers Van Eeghen NV (hereafter ‘Van Eeghen’) and Kirsch.

(9) In its comments to the provisional measures, CFNA submitted that the Commission had failed to adequately disclose its determination of the scope of the Union industry, did not disclose any key data regarding the Union industry’s production capacity, output, sales, exports, and consumption of different forms of choline chloride, and did not disclose the specific methodology used to calculate the dumping margin (only disclosing the profit margin and environmental and labour costs). It found and criticised that the disclosed information was limited to the final conclusions without revealing the underlying reasoning or calculation process and considered that this constitutes procedural defects of insufficient disclosure, rendering the review procedure substantially meaningless, excluding interested parties from information access, preventing them from examining and verifying the Commission’s preliminary determination, and from raising substantial challenges or counter-evidence, which seriously damaged the ability of interested parties including CFNA to reasonably exercise defense rights, and undermining procedural justice. After final disclosure, some of these comments were repeated.

(10) The Commission disagreed. It clarified that the calculations of dumping and injury are company specific and they contain confidential details, therefore, the confidential details are only disclosed to the parties concerned. The methodologies underlying these calculations and the resulting duty levels are, however, fully explained in Sections 3.5 and 6.1 of the provisional Regulation, for dumping and injury margins respectively. The Commission had also, in the provisional Regulation, explained the determination of the Union industry.

(11) The Commission also provided and assessed the key data of the Union industry that CFNA submitted it found to be missing and explained the sources of these data.

(12) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions when appropriate.

(13) The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of choline chloride originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure. Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard.

(14) Following final disclosure, Aocter, CFNA, FY Feed, Kirsch and YB submitted comments. A hearing took place with Kirsch.

(15) In the absence of any comments on initiation, the conclusions set out in recitals (6) to (12) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(16) In the absence of any comments on sampling, the conclusions in recitals (13) to (17) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(17) The Commission corrected a clerical error in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation. Not one unrelated importer and one user, but rather two importers of the product under investigation (Kirsch and Van Eeghen) submitted a questionnaire reply.

(18) With that change, and in the absence of any comments, recitals (18) to (21) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(19) It is recalled that the investigation period runs from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 and the period considered from 1 January 2021 to the end of the investigation period. In the absence of any comments, recital (22) of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(20) In the absence of any comments, recitals (23) to (30) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(21) Following pre-disclosure and the imposition of provisional measures, comments regarding the product scope were submitted in writing and/or presented in a hearing by the exporting producer Jinan, the unrelated importers Kirsch and Van Eeghen, CFNA, the complainants and Algry Química.

(22) Jinan, Kirsch and Van Eeghen reiterated the claim already made at the provisional stage that food grade and feed grade choline chloride should be considered as distinct products in view of the existing differences in term of production process, purity and different market behaviour, including prices. In view of these differences, they insisted that food grade choline chloride should be excluded from the measures. The complainants and Algry Química supported the Commission’s provisional decision not to exclude food grade choline chloride from the product scope of the investigation.

(23) With regard to the production process, in recital (34) of the provisional Regulation the Commission found that choline chloride for human consumption and choline chloride for feed applications are manufactured in the same way, but that choline chloride sold to the food industry has higher testing standards and need test certificates. In its comments to the provisional measures, Van Eeghen underlined that the production process of food grade choline chloride is more structured and implies higher investments and production costs, is subject to a stricter quality control and its packaging has technical features which are not present in that of feed grade choline chloride. Kirsch also claimed that the production costs of food grade choline chloride are inherently higher than those for feed grade.

(24) The complainants submitted that choline chloride, in whatever form, purity and concentration, derives from the same raw materials and is obtained by the same chemical process, resulting eventually in the same chemical output. Therefore, it considered that choline chloride for feed applications and choline chloride for food applications represent two types of the same product. Algry Química, the sole Union producer that served both markets in the period considered, declared to produce liquid choline chloride for feed and food applications, both deriving from the same production process. It however noted that the food grade receives a further processing for centrifugation and crystallisation, entailing additional production costs.

(25) With regard to purity, Jinan, Van Eeghen and Kirsch claimed that food grade choline chloride is a pure substance in the form of crystals or crystallin powder, with a purity level above 98 %, while feed grade choline chloride has a lower level of purity, usually below 90 %. This claim was contested by the complainants (7), who submitted that the purity criteria for food grade choline chloride is essentially the same as those set for choline chloride for feed applications. That conclusion was based on a comparison of the purity requirements for feed grade choline chloride as laid down in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 795/2013 (8) concerning the authorisation of choline chloride as a feed additive for all animal species, on the one hand, and, on the other, Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9) on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods, Article 4(4) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements and Article 15(5) of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) on food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control.

(26) Van Eeghen and Kirsch further claimed, with reference to the Food Chemical Codex (FCC) (12), that food grade choline chloride has higher standards in terms of testing and quality controls to certify the purity level required by the applicable regulations for human consumption. The complainants contested that the different testing standards for food grade choline chloride would result in significantly higher costs.

(27) In view of the differences in purity level, production process and different end-uses, Jinan, Van Eeghen and Kirsch claimed that the price level and market behaviour of food grade choline chloride is substantially different from that of feed grade choline chloride. In their submissions, Jinan and Kirsch claimed that the price of food grade choline chloride is 5 to 8 times higher than that of feed grade choline chloride. The difference in pricing would be due to higher requirements in purity level and additional phases in the production process.

(28) The complainants submitted that the use of choline chloride (for feed or food) is not a major cost driver, since the same raw materials and chemical process are used to obtain both types of choline chloride. According to the complainants, the primary cost factors impacting the unit price are the form (e.g. crystalline powder, choline chloride on a carrier) and volume.

(29) Algry Química submitted that the sale price of food grade choline chloride is indeed higher than feed grade choline chloride, reflecting the additional processing costs and the specific market behaviour of food grade customers. Algry Química did however neither quantify the additional costs, nor the price difference between the two different product types.

(30) Kirsch further submitted that there is insufficient EU production capacity for food-grade choline chloride to meet Union market demand. This claim was however not substantiated by evidence. On this issue, the complainants informed the Commission that they can produce choline chloride for the food market with very low additional investments and in a short time. They submitted that they would be ready to do so if the demand is there and the market conditions are fair. Also, Algry Química submitted that it would increase its output, if the market conditions are fair, in case of demand.

(31) Van Eeghen also claimed that the investigation should follow the approach adopted by the Commission Decision 2012/343/EU (13) on imports of soy protein from PRC, where the Commission made a distinction between food and feed use and the product scope was reduced following a request by the complainant. Van Eeghen also made reference to settled case-law, elaborating from the Judgement of the General Court, 28 February 2017, Yingli Energy, Case T-160/14, ECLI:EU:T:2017:125, para. 111 (14), the Judgement of the General Court, 25 January 2017, Rusal Armenal ZAO, Case T-512/09 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2017:26, para. 151 (15) and the Judgement of the General Court, 21 June 2023, Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology, Case T-326/21, ECLI:EU:T:2023:347, para. 66 (16).

(32) In recital (35) of the provisional Regulation reference was made to a submission of Algry Quimica which pointed at the risk of circumvention of the measures on feed grade choline chloride if food grade choline chloride would be excluded from the measures. After the imposition of provisional measures, Van Eeghen considered that the risk of circumvention is negligible, since it considered that the differences in form, pricing and packaging between the two types of applications would allow custom checks to easily distinguish between the two types of the product concerned. Kirsch submitted that diverting food grade choline chloride into feed grade choline chloride would not be economically convenient and practically viable due to the regulatory requirements applicable to the food grade product types. After final disclosure, Kirsch submitted that the risk of circumvention of the measures in case of exclusion of food grade choline chloride is negligible as circumvention can easily be prevented.

(33) The complainants disagreed and considered the risk of circumvention real and present. This would be in essence because of (i) a very similar purity between the two products; (ii) the fact that all producers active on the Union market can produce it; and (iii) the fact that liquid choline chloride could be imported into the Union in a liquid form allegedly for crystallisation, i.e. for the food market thus duty free, but once customs cleared, it could be sold to the feed market.

(34) As a preliminary comment, the Commission recalled that an important rule for determining whether product types constitute a single product is that they share the same basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics. In other words, the existence of different production processes, if any, are not per se relevant in determining whether a product type is a distinct product, provided that the product types obtained from these processes are alike in terms of the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics. In the same vein, a different end-use may not be a decisive factor if the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics are the same and differences in costs and prices do not per se justify the conclusion that a certain product group should be considered as a different product, as long as this type shares the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics as the product concerned.

(35) On substance, the Commission acknowledged that both sides agree that the first phase of the production process is similar or identical for both food grade and feed grade choline chloride, with the subsequent production of food grade choline chloride entailing stricter requirements than feed grade choline chloride in terms of testing and quality controls. Likewise, the centrifugation and crystallisation processes represent a further processing step from liquid into solid after the purification process of choline chloride for food grade. Notwithstanding that food grade choline chloride could undergo a specific purification and subsequent drying process, the purity level does not constitute a distinctive mark between the two product types (17). In view of these considerations, the Commission considered the production process for the two product types not fundamentally different.

(36) The Commission noted that food grade and feed grade choline chloride have different sale prices which are defined by different customer groups and, also, additional production, testing and certification steps for the food grade product types. These additional steps however appear to be limited and no interested party submitted verifiable figures showing the difference in production costs. In any event, as explained in recital (34) above, even a markedly different selling price does not constitute an element to justify the exclusion of a product type from the product scope.

(37) The Commission recalled that the food grade market is relatively small and is estimated to account for 5 % of the Union market at most. Therefore, and in view of the fact that the three Union producers all indicated that they have the capacity and willingness to serve the food market once a level playing field is established, the Commission considered that the security of supply for food grade choline chloride is not at risk.

(38) The Commission finally noted that the risk of circumvention could materialise in different ways, noting that form, price and packaging could be adapted for that purpose may the food grade choline chloride be excluded from the product scope.