Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/99 of 15 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of peroxosulphates (persulphates) 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

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 Regulation (EC) No 1184/2007 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of peroxosulphates, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the original measures’). Two companies were granted market economy treatment (‘MET’), one of which received individual dumping duty rate of 24,5 %. The other company was found not to be dumping and was excluded from measures. All other companies were subject to a duty rate of 71,8 %. The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) In December 2013, the Council, following an expiry review, extended the anti-dumping measures by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1343/2013 (3).

(3) In January 2020, following the second expiry review, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) extended the measures through Regulation (EU) 2020/39 (4).

(4) In March 2020, the Commission following, an anti-circumvention investigation, by Regulation (EU) 2020/477 (5) amended Regulation (EU) 2020/39 and made the company which was excluded from the measures subject to a duty rate of 71,8 %.

(5) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are at 24,5 % on imports from the sampled exporting producer, and a duty rate of 71,8 % on all other companies from the People’s Republic of China.

(6) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the measures in force (6), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(7) The request for review was submitted on 16 October 2024 by two Union producers (RheinPerChemie GmbH and United Initiators GmbH referred to as the ‘applicants’) representing 100 % of the total Union production. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(8) On 17 January 2025 the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (7) (‘the Notice of Initiation’) the initiation of an expiry review on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(9) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 (‘the 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’).

(10) 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 applicants, the known exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China, the known unrelated importers in the Union and the authorities of the PRC about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(11) 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. None of the parties requested a hearing.

(12) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. No exporting producers came forward to cooperate in the review investigation.

Sampling of importers

(13) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(14) No unrelated importers provided the requested information. The Commission decided that sampling was not necessary. No comments were received to this decision.

(15) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(16) The Commission made available online (8) the questionnaires for all exporters, Union producers and users.

(17) Questionnaire replies were received from the two Union producers.

(19) On 20 October 2025, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(20) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. The parties who so requested were granted a hearing.

(21) The product under review is peroxosulphates (persulphates), including potassium peroxymonosulphate sulphate, currently falling under CN codes 2833 40 00 and ex 2842 90 80 (TARIC code 2842 90 80 20) (‘the product under review’).

(22) Persulphates are used mainly as polymerisation initiators in the production of polymers for a wide variety of applications. Another significant area of use is surface preparation, notably as an etching agent in the preparation of printed circuit boards. The strong oxidising properties of persulphates are used in a wide variety of industries and applications including cosmetics (hair bleaching and denture cleaning), textiles desizing, pulp and paper production, swimming pool disinfectants, organic synthesis and soil remediation.

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(24) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(25) During the review investigation period, imports of persulphates from the PRC disappeared almost completely from the Union market. According to Eurostat, imports of persulphates from the PRC accounted for about 0,01 % of the Union market in the review investigation period (9) compared to 25 % market share during the previous expiry review. Imports from the PRC were stable for 2022 and 2023 but decreased during the review investigation period.

(26) Thus, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC; the relationship between export prices to third countries and normal value constructed for the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(27) As mentioned in recital (12), none of the exporters/producers from the PRC cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to the PRC. The Commission did not receive any comments in this regard (10).

(28) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular information provided in the request for review, publicly available data from Türkiye, which was selected as representative country, including from the Turkish Statistical Institute (11), the Turkish Energy Market Authority, the President of the Republic of Türkiye Investment Office (12), Trading Economics (13) as well as data from Orbis Bureau van Dijk (‘Orbis’) (14) and Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) (15).

(29) To analyse the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, in particular for the purpose of price comparisons, the Commission first determined the normal value as detailed in Sections 3.2 to 3.5 below.

(30) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(31) In order to obtain information, it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(32) No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, on 27 July 2025, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC. No comments were raised by the GOC in this regard.

(33) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it had provisionally selected Türkiye as an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(34) On 15 April 2025, the Commission issued a Note for the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value (‘the Note’) (16). Interested parties were given adequate time to comment.

(35) By the Note, the Commission also informed interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Türkiye as the representative country.

(36) In the Note, the Commission informed interested parties that, given the absence of cooperation it would base other direct costs and manufacturing overheads on the information regarding the Union industry provided in the expiry review request and additional information received from the applicants and express them as percentages.

(37) It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) cost and profits based on readily available information for one Turkish producer, Alkim Alkali Kimya, who was profitable during the most recent financial year 2023, with available financial data and showed a reasonable level of SG&A cost and profit.

(38) Finally, by the Note, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the sources and the appropriateness of Türkiye as a representative country and to suggest other countries, provided they submitted sufficient information on the relevant criteria. No comments were received.

(39) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(40) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’, and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’ (‘administrative, selling and general costs’ is refereed hereinafter as ‘SG&A’).

(41) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the exporting producers, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(42) The Commission examined the evidence on the file to decide whether significant distortions within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation exist in the PRC, rendering the use of domestic prices and costs in that country inappropriate. That analysis covered the following evidentiary elements on the various criteria relevant to establish the existence of significant distortions.

(43) First, the evidence contained in the request included the following elements pointing to the existence of significant distortions.

(44) The applicants noted that significant distortions exist with respect to all the elements of the cost of production of peroxosulphates. Furthermore, the applicants argued that the situation which was prevailing at the time of the Commission’s most recent expiry review regarding imports of peroxosulphates in China has not changed.

(45) In particular, the applicants mentioned in the request, distortions in relation to the prices of electricity as electricity costs account for a significant proportion of peroxosulphates manufacturing costs. The applicants also mentioned the existence of distortions in the prices of the principal raw materials to produce peroxosulphates, namely: ammonium sulphate, liquid ammonia, sulphuric acid, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. Moreover, the applicants pointed out in the request the State intervention affecting the supply chain throughout China for these raw materials, noting that as a result, prices for the supply for these materials are not subject to free market forces.

(46) In addition, the request mentioned the State influence in some of the Chinese exporting producers. The applicants also argued that State interference is evidenced in all factors of production of the product under review noting that distortions affect also capital, land, labour as evidenced in the original investigation and in past expiry reviews. Furthermore, the request mentioned the Chinese 14 FYP on developing the raw materials industry where in Section IV.2 it is specifically mentioned the goal to ‘Formulate the conditions for the identification of chemical parks, guide local governments to identify a number of chemical parks, and guide the clustering and standardized development of chemical enterprises (…)’.

(47) Second, in recent investigations concerning the chemical sector in the PRC, the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present. In those investigations, the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles. In particular, the Commission concluded that in the chemical sector, not only does a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persists in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), first indent of the basic Regulation but the GOC is also in a position to interfere with prices and costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation. The Commission found further that the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials and inputs further have an additional distorting effect on the market. Indeed, overall, the system of planning in the PRC results in resources being driven to sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the GOC, rather than being allocated in line with market forces. Moreover, the Commission concluded that the Chinese bankruptcy and property laws do not work properly in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fourth indent of the basic Regulation, thus generating distortions in particular when maintaining insolvent firms afloat and when allocating land use rights in the PRC. In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the chemical sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation, as well as distortions in the financial markets in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), sixth indent of the basic Regulation, in particular concerning access to capital for corporate actors in the PRC.

(48) Third, in most recent expiry review concerning the product concerned the Commission concluded that significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation were present. No major structural changes in the PRC in general and/or in the relevant sector in particular, capable of affecting that conclusion, are known to the Commission.

(49) Fourth, additional evidence available in the Report on Significant Distortions in the Economy of China (‘Report’), prepared by the Commission pursuant to Article 2(6a)(c) of the basic Regulation, pointed to the existence of significant distortions also during the review investigation period.

(50) Fifth, no evidence or arguments to the contrary have been adduced by the GOC or the exporting producers in the present investigation.

(51) In view of the above, the evidence available showed that prices or costs of the product under review, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation as shown by the actual or potential impact of one or more of the relevant elements listed therein. On that basis, the Commission concluded that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. Consequently, the Commission proceeded to construct the normal value exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, that is, in this case, on the basis of corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(53) As explained in recital (34), the Commission issued a Note that described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria, and informed interested parties of its intention to use Türkiye as an appropriate representative country in the present case if the existence of significant distortions pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was confirmed.