Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/65 of 6 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 (2), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago (hereafter also: ‘TT’) and the United States of America (hereafter also: ‘the US’ or ‘USA’) (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) In May 2021, Copa-Cogeca, an association of users of the product concerned, requested for the suspension of the anti-dumping duties in force, in accordance with Article 14(4) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036. By Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2070 (3), the Commission decided not to suspend the anti-dumping duties on imports of mixture of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688.

(3) The anti-dumping duties currently in force range between 27,77 EUR/tonne and 42,47 EUR/tonne on imports from Russia and amount to 22,24 EUR/tonne on imports from Trinidad and Tobago and to 29,48 EUR/tonne on imports from the United States of America.

(4) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (4) the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5) The request for review was submitted on 28 June 2024 by Fertilizers Europe (‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The grounds of the request for review were that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(6) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 8 October 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(7) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(8) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers in the countries concerned and the authorities of Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of America, known importers and associations representing the interests of users known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(9) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(10) The Russian authorities argued that the initiation of the investigation was WTO-inconsistent to the extent that the Panel Report in EU – Cost Adjustment Methodologies II (Russia) (6) found the cost adjustment methodology used by the Commission in the original investigation to be inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Commission noted that the Panel Report in question is still under appeal. In any event, the facts examined by that panel are different from the facts of this case. In particular, the expiry review request submitted by Fertilizers Europe contains dumping calculations based on actual domestic prices in Russia. This claim was thus dismissed.

(11) On 14 November 2024, the Russian authorities alleged the absence of a duly substantiated request within the meaning of Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement since the request lacked sufficient evidence of the likelihood of recurrence or continuation of dumping and injury. The Russian authorities referred to dumping calculations under the so-called standard methodology, which the Russian authorities alleged were not duly summarised. The Russian authorities stated that the request deprived Russian parties of the opportunity to verify data, to understand and verify the calculations and to comment on them because the request lacked due summarisation of confidential information, including data provided by external experts to the applicant, or lacked a statement of reasons explaining why summarisation was not possible. In this context, the Russian authorities referred to Article 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and several WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Decisions, including EC – Fasteners (China) (7).

(12) In addition, with regard to the constructed normal value outlined by the applicant in the request, the Russian authorities claimed that adjustments of the natural gas costs based on Waidhaus or Baumgarten prices are inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. To this end, the Russian authorities referred to the WTO Panel Report on Cost Adjustment Methodologies (8).

(13) By submission of 16 November 2024 (9), Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Limited (‘MHTL’), an exporting producer located in Trinidad and Tobago, alleged that the request did not meet legal standards as regards the allegation that the expiry of the measures in respect of imports from Trinidad and Tobago would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping. MHTL specified that the request showed negative dumping margins with regard to the Trinidad and Tobago exports of UAN to the Union.

(14) By submission of 18 November 2024 (10), CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (‘CFI’), an exporting producer located in the United States of America, echoed the Russian authorities as regards the impossibility for interested parties to verify certain data, assessments and sources in the request. CFI also cast doubts on the legitimacy of some of the applicant’s claims due to discrepancies between the figures in the request and in Eurostat regarding imports from the US in 2020 and 2021.

(15) By submission of 18 November 2024 (11), JSC Nevinnomyssky Azot (Eurochem) and JSC Novomoskovsk Azot (NAK Azot) (jointly referred to as ‘Eurochem’) argued that the version of the request for an expiry review that was lodged on 28 June 2024 by Fertilizers Europe (‘original request’) did not provide sufficient evidence of the likelihood of continuation of dumping or injury by means of UAN imports from Russia. Eurochem also reiterated that such lack of sufficient evidence in the original request could not be rectified by additional information submitted by the applicant during the three-month period preceding the expiry of the original measures. It referred in this regard to the open version of the request for an expiry review dated 9 September 2024 that was made available to interested parties in the case file. Eurochem therefore requested that the Commission provide Eurochem with the original request.

(16) Further, Eurochem claimed that the original request did not contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would likely result in a continuation of dumping. It argued that the export price as determined by the applicant was manifestly inaccurate because it was based on a wrongful methodology and was not supported by evidence. Specifically, Eurochem alleged that the request incorrectly used an average annual import price for Russia, but should have relied on average monthly import prices as there was a major fluctuation in UAN prices in 2023. Also, in the request, the average import price of Russian UAN imports in 2023 were based on Eurostat and adjusted for transportation costs within Russia and between Russia to France (Rouen). According to Eurochem, such adjustments incorrectly assumed that all Russian imports require transportation costs for shipment within Russia, as Acron, a major Russian exporter, used its own UAN terminal in Estonia, and that all Russian imports entered the EU through France whereas, according to Eurochem, one third of Russian UAN imports was imported through other Member States.

(17) In addition, Eurochem claimed that the request provided no evidence for several assumptions regarding the determination of the export price of Russian-origin UAN, such as that Acron had sales of UAN from Russia to the EU, transportation of UAN within Russia and from Russia to France as well as related costs for such transportation. In this regard, the request referred to several confidential annexes without providing good cause for such confidential treatment. Eurochem argued that the non-confidential version of these annexes which contained certain ranges are meaningless and insufficient for interested parties to gain a reasonable understanding of the information submitted.

(18) Further, Eurochem claimed that the determination of the normal value was also based on a wrongful methodology and not supported by evidence. Eurochem specified that, contrary to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, the request compared the export prices of a plant in Russia that had no domestic sales (JSC Acron) with domestic sales prices of a plant in Russia that had both, domestic and export sales (NAK or Nevinka). According to Eurochem, the request should have either taken domestic and export prices of the same plant or average Russian export and domestic sales prices. Instead, the request erroneously relied upon prices of legal entities that were not comparable.

(19) Eurochem additionally claimed that the applicant had not used three known sources of monthly UAN prices in the Russian market, namely Argus, Chemcourier and SPIMEX and instead relied on unsupported speculations by an unnamed expert or consultant. Also, since UAN prices significantly fluctuated in the course of 2023, the request should have determined the normal value based on monthly home market prices, rather than annual average prices.

(20) Furthermore, Eurochem echoed the comments made by the Russian authorities, as concerns the absence of due summarisation of confidential information of normal value data.

(21) Furthermore, Eurochem alleged that the request failed to provide evidence of a particular market situation within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, and that the cost adjustment methodology whereby the actual cost of gas in Russia is replaced by a benchmark price based on gas prices at Waidhaus and Baumgarten was inconsistent with applicable WTO rules. Eurochem also argued that constructing a normal value that was based on selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) costs and profit stemming from UAN producers in the USA would likewise be in conflict with EU and WTO rules.

(22) Additionally, Eurochem argued that the request did not provide sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would result in a continuation of injury by means of imports from Russia and it failed to analyse the effect of various other factors that caused injury to the Union industry, such as imports from third countries, the export performance of the Union industry, the evolution of consumption, the price of urea, increased costs of production of Union producers and purchases of UAN by Union producers.

(23) The Commission carried out an examination of the request in accordance with Articles 11(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation and concluded that the requirements for initiation of an expiry review investigation were met. The Commission considered that the prima facie evidence presented in the request pointed to a situation whereby the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in the continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry injury which merited the initiation of an investigation according to the law. In other words, the request was found to be sufficiently substantiated and therefore deserved further investigation. Such assessment was made before the three-month period preceding the expiry of the original measures. The version of the request dated 9 September 2025 that was made available to interested parties in the case file at initiation of the investigation constituted a consolidation of the request and certain corroborating evidence that was submitted by the applicant, which did not constitute any new evidence or arguments when compared to the original version of the request. Specifically as regards Eurochem’s request to receive the original version of the request, the Commission shared this with Eurochem on 15 January 2025. In this respect, the Court notes that, in accordance wih the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-554/23 P, C-568/23 P, Fertilizers Europe and Commission v Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK “Azot” (12), Article 11(2) of the basic AD Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is entitled to take into account evidence that was produced, at its request, by Union producers in the three-month period preceding the expiry of anti-dumping measures, in order to decide whether it is appropriate to carry out a review of those anti-dumping measures.

(24) The claims made by the four parties in relation to the lawfulness of initiation and the sufficiency of evidence presented in the request were thus dismissed. In this regard, the Commission emphasised that a review request must contain sufficient prima facie evidence. In particular, according to settled case-law, the quantity and quality of the evidence necessary to meet the criteria of the sufficiency of the evidence for the purpose of initiating an expiry review is different from that which is necessary for the purpose of a preliminary or final determination of the existence of recurrence or continuation of dumping and injury (13).

(25) The request lodged by the applicant included detailed calculations showing the continuation of dumping in Russia based on evidence reasonably available to the applicant. The Commission considered the quantity and the quality of evidence submitted by the applicant to be sufficient to lead to the initiation of the expiry review. In this respect, contrarily to what Eurochem submitted, there is no obligation under Article 11 of the basic Regulation for an expiry review request to faithfully reflect, in the dumping margin calculations, all different distribution channels of the product concerned in the countries considered and in the Union. Similarly, there is no legal requirement for the request to cover the entirety of domestic or export sales or present detailed adjustments in the calculations. Moreover, the average yearly calculations submitted by the applicant were sufficient to establish a prima facie dumping margin. There is no obligation for an applicant lodging an expiry review request to carry out monthly dumping margin calculations prior to the initiation stage.

(26) In the same vein, the Commission considered that none of the comments lodged by Eurochem in relation to injury and causation, as summarised in recital (22) above, could plausibly put into question the sufficiency of the detailed relevant evidence submitted as part of the request.

(27) The Commission therefore considered that the quantity and quality of evidence demanded in particular by Eurochem clearly goes beyond the prima facie standard. Eurochem’s claims were dismissed accordingly.

(28) The claim made by the Russian authorities on the methodology to assess the normal value for Russia is further addressed in the respective section covering the dumping assessment, notably under recitals (56), (60) and (61) below.

(29) As regards the claim by MHTL concerning the missing evidence on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, the Comission agreed on the fact that the request showed negative dumping margins with regard to TT. Where dumping has ceased to exist following the imposition of measures, any expiry review analysis has indeed to focus on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping. The Commission noted that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, based on data reasonably available, showing the likelihood of recurrence of dumping from TT under several plausible scenarios and in line with the relevant legal standard. The Commission considered the arguments submitted by MHTL as incapable as putting into question the sufficiency of evidence included in the request.

(30) The Commission considered that the request was submitted with a sufficiently clear and detailed non-confidential version. The non-confidential version provided interested parties with a meaningful understanding of the legal and factual grounds underpinning the request, thereby allowing them to submit thorough comments at initiation stage. The Commission further noted that, in the course of the proceedings, the applicant engaged in an additional disclosure of information and annexes to the request which were initially kept confidential. The applicants’ document was placed on the open file of the investigation and made available to interested parties. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the claims raised by interested parties in this respect.

(31) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(32) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of representativity in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024. The geographical spread was also considered. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for approximately 64 % of the estimated total volume of production of the like product in the Union at initiation stage and 75 % of the sales into the Union of the producers that replied to the standing exercise. The sample was representative of the Union industry.