Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/71 of 12 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China and India

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 20 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China and India (‘the countries concerned’) 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 5 November 2024 by Kandelium Group GmbH (‘the complainant’ or ‘Kandelium’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of barium carbonate 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) 2025/482 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 14 July 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days. No comments were received.

(5) On 11 August 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China and India by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1724 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(6) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), two exporting producers (Guizhou Redstar Developing Co., Ltd. (‘Redstar’) and Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd (‘Chutian’)) as well as the complainant filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

(7) The parties were granted an opportunity to be heard. No request for hearing was submitted.

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

(9) The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People’s Republic of China and India (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) Parties were also granted an opportunity to be heard. No request for hearing was submitted.

(11) No claims were received on initiation. Therefore, the conclusion in recital 6 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(12) No comments were received on sampling. Therefore, the conclusions in recitals 7 to 14 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(13) No comments were received on questionnaire replies and verification visits. Therefore, the conclusions in recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(14) No comments were received on the investigation period and period considered. Therefore, the conclusions in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(15) No comments were received on the product concerned and the like product. Therefore, the conclusions in recitals 20 to 25 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(16) Following the provisional disclosure, both sampled exporting producers as well as the complainant commented on the provisional dumping findings.

(17) In the absence of any claims concerning the existence of significant distortions and the choice of a representative country, sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the provisional Regulation were hereby confirmed.

(18) The details of the calculation of the normal value were set out in recitals 26 to 130 of the provisional Regulation.

(19) Following the final disclosure, Redstar argued that there is a large discrepancy between the dumping margins of Chinese and Indian producers, despite similar injury margins. According to Redstar, this indicated that the constructed normal values applied to Chinese producers are not reflecting the accurate market conditions.

(20) First, as explained in recitals 82 to 84 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found in the context of this investigation actual evidence of the existence of significant distortions affecting the barium carbonate industry in China. The Commission therefore concluded that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in China to establish normal value for exporting producers from China. Consequently, the Commission constructed the normal value of Chinese exporting producers on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. For India on the other hand there was no claim nor finding of significant distortions. Therefore, normal value for Indian exporting producer was established in accordance with Articles 2(2) to (6) of the basic Regulation. Second, Redstar failed to present any evidence that conditions for applying Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for establishing normal value for Chinese exporting producers in this case were not met. Redstar’s claim in this regard was rejected in the provisional Regulation and was not further substantiated following the provisional disclosure nor in response to the final disclosure. The discrepancy in the dumping margins alone does not render the methodology applied to Chinese producers invalid. Redstar’s argument therefore had to be rejected.

(21) Following the provisional disclosure, one of the sampled exporting producers, Chutian restated its argument summarised at recital 110 of the provisional Regulation, that the prices used as benchmark values for the baryte ore based on Turkish import prices should be replaced by the Indian export prices. As set out in recital 111 of the provisional Regulation, the product mix of Indian baryte ore is not materially different from baryte ore imported into Türkiye therefore rendering the argument that Indian prices and baryte ore types are more representative of the baryte ore used by the Chinese producers than the ore imported into Türkiye ineffective. Moreover, Chutian did not provide any substantive evidence in support of its claims and in any event, the Turkish import prices of baryte ore are convergent with the Indian prices. Chutian’s argument was therefore rejected.

(22) Moreover, according to Chutian, the Commission should ensure that the baryte ore prices used reflect the value of raw baryte ore, rather than the value of baryte powder. Chutian further suggested that the grade of baryte used in the petroleum industry is higher than that used in the chemical industry and that the price of baryte used in the factors of production (FOP) determination should be based on barium sulfate content. First, contrary to Chutian’s claim, to establish the benchmark value for baryte ore the Commission used solely the replacement cost of raw baryte ore, which is the raw material used by the sampled Chinese exporting producers, and excluded baryte in its powder form. Moreover, Chutian’s claim on the link between the grade of baryte ore/barium sulfate content and the price of the ore was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Chutian did not demonstrate to which grade and barium sulfate content the baryte ore prices captured by the GTA statistics related. Therefore, Chutian’s arguments were dismissed.

(23) Furthermore, Chutian argued that Türkiye’s baryte ore imports (over 102 kt) were a much less representative source for the FOP benchmark than the Indian baryte ore exports (over 1 500 kt). The Commission noted that the fact alone that Indian exports were made in higher quantities than imports into Türkiye did not make the Turkish statistics less representative, especially in view of the absolute quantities imported by Türkiye. No other evidence showing that the prices of imports into Türkiye were unrepresentative were put forward. This is all the more valid in the circumstances where Türkiye was identified as the appropriate representative country for the purposes of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, including on the grounds of level of economic development similar to China.

(24) Chutian further requested in its response to the provisional disclosure that the Commission exclude irregular imports from the baryte ore benchmark calculation for being distortive. More specifically, Chutian requested that imports of raw baryte ore from Morocco, priced higher than imported ground baryte, be excluded. Chutian further argued that another GTA import entry with a very small quantity and significantly higher unit price was to be considered irregular and equally excluded.

(25) First, the data on import prices of baryte ore in Türkiye are readily available in the GTA at the level of granularity that allowed the Commission to isolate and distinguish the statistics on baryte ore in a raw, unprocessed form, used by the Chinese exporting producers. The Commission also verified that there were sufficient representative and undistorted quantities of these imports so that the resulting final average automatically reduced the impact of the potential abnormal prices at the lower and higher end of the range. Therefore, there is no valid reason to exclude imports of raw baryte ore from Morocco. In the same vein, price benchmarking against other forms of the raw material in question (raw versus powder form) and any resulting differences do not render the benchmark used unsuitable. Moreover, regarding the import of a minor quantity with a manifestly high unit price, any potential exclusion of this entry would not affect the resulting FOP benchmark and hence was considered irrelevant in this case.

(26) Following the provisional disclosure as well as in response to the final disclosure, another sampled exporter, Redstar argued with reference to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation that the source data for undistorted values of baryte ore (as well as CO2) were not at the same level with Redstar’s situation. Redstar namely contended that the Commission's use of CIF-based import data artificially inflated the undistorted values since Redstar sourced baryte ore from a nearby mine. Therefore, according to Redstar, excluding the cost of ocean freight, insurance and import duty and making a comparison based at FOB price level better represented a fairer comparison pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

(27) First, Redstar’s reference to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation is misplaced. Article 2(10) refers to the fair comparison between export prices and the normal value, as opposed to the construction of the normal value. Second, the Commission noted that the CIF import prices available in the trade statistics (adjusted for import taxes) are in direct competition with the domestic prices in the representative country and therefore were used as an appropriate benchmark in this case. Hence, Redstar’s argument was rejected.

(28) Chutian reiterated in its reply to the provisional disclosure the request for adjustment of the CO2 prices to eliminate distortions caused by food grade CO2 and CO2 transported in cylinders. In the same vein, Redstar, argued in its response to the provisional disclosure that the Commission's use of liquid CO2 prices packed in cylinders was not representative of the actual prices paid by Chinese producers, which use tank or truck transportation. Consequently, Redstar requested that the Commission exclude the data for import of the liquid CO2 packed in cylinders and only consider the price of the CO2 packed in tanks.

(29) The arguments of the exporting producers were discussed and dismissed in recital 114 of the provisional Regulation. Furthermore, Chutian and Redstar failed to demonstrate that the benchmark established for CO2 included (and to what degree) different grades and means of transportation (cylinders or trucks) and to what extent the prices would be different. Chutian’s and Redstar’s arguments were considered to be unsubstantiated and therefore rejected.

(30) In response to the provisional disclosure, the complainant (Kandelium) reiterated its claims that the establishment of replacement costs for bituminous coal and CO2 should be adjusted to reflect the costs incurred by producers in Türkiye. Kandelium’s claims were dismissed with reference to the recitals 104 and 115 of the provisional Regulation. It was recalled in particular that, where a representative benchmark for a particular input is not available in national or import statistics of the representative country and alternative benchmarks are used, the Commission is no longer determining the price of that input as incurred in the representative country by domestic producers (in this case Türkiye).

(31) In response to the provisional disclosure, Chutian argued that the Sisecam’s SG&A cost figures used in constructing the normal value should be adjusted to exclude transportation costs, insurance expenses, commission fees and packaging expenses, as these were already reported in the transaction-by-transaction tables for the sales in the Union. First, and notably, the transport costs (considerably more material than any insurance charges, packaging costs or commission fees) have been duly excluded from the SG&A of Sisecam as set out in the Second Note and Annexes Vib and Vic thereof. Second, the Commission noted that the packaging costs were not considered as allowances deducted from the export price in the present case, making Chutian’s argument on this point unfounded. Third and regarding the insurance and commission charges, the publicly available data on Sisecam’s SG&A costs did not allow for an establishment of the purpose of these cost items nor the extent (if any) to which they would relate to the chromium sulphate segment, relevant in this case. Hence no adjustment was made to the SG&A costs on account of these cost items. In conclusion, the SG&A costs for Sisecam, as determined by the Commission were deemed to be reasonable in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, Chutian’s argument had to be dismissed.

(32) Additionally, Chutian requested that the Commission exclude a number of expenses from the SG&A costs related to chromium sulphate production, as they do not serve as a correct representation of the SG&A costs accrued by the (Chinese) barium carbonate producers. However, the Commission recalled that the aim of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation is not to mirror the SG&A costs of the exporting producers of barium carbonate (which are considered to be distorted). Instead, the objective is to identify reasonable and undistorted amounts for SG&A costs. In this case, Sisecam and Alkim, Turkish producers of chromium sulphate (found to be a suitable representative product in the same general category as barium carbonate) were duly identified as representative producers and their SG&A data was used accordingly as a reasonable proxy leading to reasonable amounts for SG&A costs and for profit being used. Chutian’s argument was therefore rejected.

(33) The details of the calculation of the export price were set out in recital 131 of the provisional Regulation. In the absence of any comments concerning the export price, the conclusion in recital 131 was confirmed.

(34) In the absence of any claims concerning the fair comparison under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, recitals 132 to 135 of the provisional Regulation were hereby confirmed.

(35) In the absence of any claims concerning the dumping margin calculation, recital 142 of the provisional Regulation was hereby confirmed.

(37) The Commission received no comments concerning the dumping margin calculations related to India following the provisional disclosure.

(38) The Commission’s provisional findings set out in in recitals 143 to 159 of the provisional Regulation were therefore confirmed.

(40) In the absence of any comments with respect to the definition of the Union industry and Union production, the conclusions set out in recitals 160 to 162 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(41) In the absence of any comments with respect to the Union consumption, the conclusions set out in recitals 163 to 165 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(42) Following the provisional disclosure, Chutian noted that imports from China decreased over the period considered, contrary to Indian imports which continued to increase, at prices that were consistently lower than the Chinese import prices. Therefore, Chutian argued that this reflects fundamentally different market behaviours and that imports from China should not be cumulated with imports from India and requested the Commission to assess the injury allegedly caused by Chinese exports separately from that caused by Indian exports.

(43) The Commission disagreed with this comment. Although India increased its market share from [10 %-25 %] in 2021 to [20 %-25 %] in the investigation period, China still managed to maintain its significant market share [40 %-55 %]. Moreover, export prices from both countries significantly undercut Union industry’s prices over the period considered. For these reasons, the Commission considered that the cumulation of Indian and Chinese imports in assessing the injury to the Union industry was correct.

(44) The Commission confirmed that the conditions for the cumulative assessment of imports under Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were analysed and were found to be met in recitals 166 to 169 of the provisional Regulation. The interested parties, including Chutian, did not submit any new argument following the imposition of provisional measures which could change this assessment, or which would be relevant under Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.

(45) The claim was therefore dismissed.

(46) Following provisional disclosure, Chutian argued that the negative cash flow of the Union industry was partly due to adjustments in the Union producer’s audited accounts caused by stock revaluation and cost reallocation after a reporting system change. Chutian also claimed that the Commission did not clarify whether these effects were excluded from the injury assessment. Chutian requested the Commission to disclose whether and how these adjustments were excluded, and if not, to exclude them and reassess injury and causality accordingly.