Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/114 of 15 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of fused alumina 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 21 November 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of fused alumina originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘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 9 October 2024 by Imerys S.A. (‘Imerys’ or ‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of fused alumina 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) 2025/260 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 26 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) Sampled exporting producers, Chongqing Saite Corundum Co., Ltd. (‘Saite’) and Luoyang Runbao Abrasives Co., Ltd. (‘Runbao’), noted the absence of calculation details concerning the non-injurious price, which were referred to in the documentation but not made available. Runbao further highlighted that the Commission had applied the same benchmark price to two distinct inputs – aluminium hydroxide of different purities – which they argued was factually and economically inaccurate. They requested that the benchmark for the lower-purity input be adjusted proportionally.

(6) The request for disclosure of calculation details concerning the non-injurious price could not be accommodated, as this information is confidential, highly sensitive and its disclosure could be detrimental to the parties concerned. The Commission also explained that aggregate figures cannot be provided without risking disclosure of confidential data from a very limited number of Union producers. With regard to the alleged clerical error concerning aluminium hydroxide benchmarks, the Commission noted that such comments did not relate to the accuracy of the calculations and could not be addressed at that stage of the investigation. This comment is addressed in Section 3.2.3.1.

(7) Union users and importers, such as Reckel GmbH (‘Reckel’) and Tyrolit – Schleifmittelwerke Swarovski AG & Co. KG (‘Tyrolit’), expressed serious methodological concerns. They argued that the Commission’s analysis focused only on brown fused alumina, while ignoring the wide variety of fused-alumina grades with differing applications and cost structures, leading to distorted price and cost comparisons. They also criticised the reliance on broad, heterogeneous tariff-line trade statistics for key inputs such as calcined bauxite and aluminium oxide, noting that these covered products of very different qualities and prices. In some cases, the same raw material (calcined bauxite) appeared to have been counted twice under separate headings.

(8) These comments did not relate to the mathematical accuracy of the calculations as disclosed. Hence, these comments were addressed in Section 3.2.3.1 of this Regulation.

(9) Further concerns were raised by Tyrolit and Reckel regarding the selection of the sources for reasonable amounts for SG & A costs and for profit. The relevant companies from which both rates were sourced were said to operate in unrelated sectors and thus provided unrepresentative data. Tyrolit stressed that this, combined with reliance on benchmark prices from Brazil for certain FOPs, including alumina and bauxite, resulted in inflated cost benchmarks. Both Tyrolit and Reckel warned that provisional anti-dumping duties of up to 136 % on the product under investigation, while leaving downstream finished abrasive products duty-free, would risk closures of Union production plants of downstream users, loss of skilled jobs, and greater dependency on imported finished products.

(10) Similarly, the points raised regarding the selection of companies for sourcing financial data on SG & A costs and profit, the alleged distortion of input benchmarks, and the wider economic consequences of the measures do not pertain to the accuracy of the mathematical calculations presented in the pre-disclosure. These matters fall under the Commission’s broader methodological assessment and Union interest analysis and were dealt with in detail in Section 3.2.3.2.

(11) On 17 July 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of fused alumina originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1456 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(13) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, the Commission invited the parties to provide additional input in particular for the purpose of assessing the Union interest, in light of the differing interests of the parties concerned. Hearings took place with AFA, Imerys, PRE, VDS, Tyrolit, Saint-Gobain, ArcelorMittal, the exporting producers represented by the CCCMC, Saite and Runbao.

(14) 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.

(15) 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 fused alumina originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). Comments submitted by parties after the disclosure were addressed in the relevant sections below.

(16) Following the disclosure referred to in recital (15), the Commission subsequently made an additional final disclosure to all interested parties. This additional disclosure contained updated findings and considerations. Parties were given the opportunity to comment on this additional disclosure, and the comments received were addressed in the relevant sections below.

(17) Following provisional disclosure, Reckel, Tyrolit and VDS argued that Article 19a(1) of the basic Regulation required provisional disclosure to take place three weeks before the imposition of provisional measures. The parties argued that the Commission, by providing information on the planned imposition of provisional duties to the parties on 26 June 2025, violated Articles 19a(1), 7(1) and 5(10) of the basic Regulation, as well as the terms of its Notice of Initiation.

(18) The Commission noted that Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation provides that provisional duties shall not be imposed within three weeks of the information being sent to interested parties in accordance with Article 19a. Therefore, this provision defines the minimum interval between the communication of such information and the adoption of provisional measures. In the present case, the Commission sent the information on 26 June 2025 and imposed provisional measures on 18 July 2025. The interval was three weeks. The requirements of Article 7(1) were thus respected.

(19) The Commission further recalled that Article 19a, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1173 (5), governs the content and purpose of provisional disclosure, whereas Article 7(1) sets the procedural framework for the timing of provisional measures. The amendment of Article 19a did not modify the temporal rule laid down in Article 7(1). Consequently, the Commission considered that the argument concerning an alleged violation of the requirements of the provisional disclosure period was unfounded and therefore rejected this claim.

(20) Following provisional disclosure, no interested party submitted any further claims or comments on initiation than those referred to in Section 1.4 of the provisional Regulation. The Commission therefore confirmed its findings and conclusions as set out in recitals (6) to (11) of the provisional Regulation.

(21) In the absence of comments regarding the sampling of Union producers, importers and exporting producers, the Commission confirmed recitals (12) to (28) of the provisional Regulation.

(22) Following provisional disclosure, no interested party submitted any claims or comments on questionnaire replies and verification visits. The Commission therefore confirmed its findings and conclusions as set out in recitals (29) to (32) of the provisional Regulation.

(23) As stated in recital (33) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(24) The Commission recalled that, as set out in recital (34) of the provisional Regulation, the product under investigation is artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined, also known as fused alumina (‘the product under investigation’).

(25) Due to its hardness and thermal resistance, fused alumina is primarily used in two industrial sectors, abrasives and refractories. In the abrasives industry, it is used in a wide range of applications, including grinding, polishing, cutting and blasting. In the refractories industry, it functions as a refractory material in high-temperature settings, such as furnace linings, crucibles, and refractory bricks. Beyond these principal uses, fused alumina is also used in the manufacture of technical ceramics and as a wear-resistant additive in surface coatings within the laminated products industry.

(26) The Commission recalled that, as set out in recital (38) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the PRC, currently falling under CN code 2818 10 11 , 2818 10 19 , ex 2818 10 91 , and 2818 10 99 (TARIC codes 2818 10 91 20, 2818 10 91 40, 2818 10 91 91, 2818 10 91 99) (‘the product concerned’).

(27) In the absence of any related claim or comment, the conclusions in recitals (40) and (41) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(28) Certain Union users from the refractory industry claimed that substitution between abrasive-grade and refractory-grade fused alumina is not possible, based on their different physical and chemical characteristics, particle size distribution, properties, applications and consumer perception. In particular, ArcelorMittal also argued that there is insufficient production and production capacity of refractory-grade fused alumina. ArcelorMittal based its claim on an estimation of the total Union consumption of fused alumina at 400 000 tonnes, including 170 000 tonnes of refractory-grade fused alumina. The parties argued that refractory-grade fused alumina should thus be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.

(29) The Commission recalled that these arguments had already been examined and addressed in recitals (42) to (45) and (307) to (308) of the provisional Regulation. The Commission reiterated that both grades share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics, including comparable alumina content, hardness, density and melting point. Variations in particle size distribution were found to stem from post-fusion processing rather than any inherent product difference. The Commission also observed a substantial overlap in particle sizes enabling interchangeability for certain applications.

(30) Furthermore, the Commission noted that the claim concerning limited Union production and production capacity of refractory-grade fused alumina does not relate to the essential nature of the product. As set out in recitals (307) and (308) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that the Union industry is capable of supplying the Union market in the required quantities, including specific types of the product concerned. Although the Union industry’s production volumes substantially decreased over the period considered due to dumped imports from China, the Commission noted that the Union industry significantly underutilised its production capacity during this period. The Commission further confirmed that the available additional capacity includes production of refractory-grade fused alumina, which is available immediately or can become operational within a very short period of time. The claim regarding insufficient Union production capacity is further addressed in Section 7.4.

(31) Additionally, regarding the Union consumption, the Commission recalled that, as set out in recitals (188) to (190) of the provisional Regulation, Union consumption amounted to 305 360 tonnes during the investigation period (‘IP’). ArcelorMittal’s claim regarding the estimated consumption of refractory-grade and overall fused alumina not only contradicts the verified data but also diverges from the assessment provided by the European Refractories Producers Federation, the users association representing several Union operators in the sector, which estimated the consumption of refractory-grade fused alumina at 80 000 tonnes.

(32) Accordingly, the Commission maintained its conclusion in recitals (42) to (45) of the provisional Regulation that both grades constitute a single product, as the variations described by the parties did not demonstrate any material differences that would justify the exclusion of refractory-grade fused alumina from the product scope.

(33) Reckel claimed that sol-gel corundum differs from other types of fused alumina in its basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics, including hardness, fracture toughness, and thermal properties, and argued that it cannot be substituted in high-end precision applications without significant operational difficulties. Reckel thus argued that sol-gel corundum should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.

(34) The Commission recalled that these arguments had already been examined and addressed in recitals (46) to (48) of the provisional Regulation. The Commission reiterated that sol-gel corundum has similar physical, chemical, and technical characteristics as other fused alumina, including comparable hardness, thermal resistance, and chemical stability. Although produced by a different process and from different raw materials, these differences do not materially affect the functional properties of the product. Additionally, cost differences alone are insufficient to treat sol-gel as a separate product. The ability of other types of fused alumina to replace sol-gel, even with reduced performance in demanding applications, demonstrates sufficient functional similarity and interchangeability for most abrasive uses.

(35) Accordingly, the Commission maintained its conclusion in recitals (46) to (48) of the provisional Regulation that sol-gel corundum falls within the scope of the product under investigation.

(36) A number of interested parties claimed that brown fused alumina should be excluded from the scope of the measures, noting that it differs from white fused alumina in its chemical composition, including lower Al2O3 content and higher impurity levels. They further claimed that brown fused alumina is either not produced in the Union or is available only in insufficient quantities to meet Union demand. In addition, the interested parties argued that switching production between brown fused alumina and white fused alumina is technically challenging, and market evidence indicates that the two products are not readily substitutable in terms of technical characteristics or price.

(37) The Commission considered that, while brown fused alumina has slightly lower Al2O3 content and higher impurity levels than white fused alumina, these differences do not constitute a material distinction in physical, chemical, or technical characteristics sufficient to define a separate product. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the claim concerning limited Union production and production capacity of brown fused alumina does not relate to the essential nature of the product. However, the Commission noted that brown fused alumina is currently produced by the Union industry. Regarding the quantities, as set out in recitals (307) and (308) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that the Union industry is capable of supplying the Union market in the required quantities, also for brown fused alumina. The Commission further confirmed that a substantial proportion of the available additional capacity, which is either immediately available or can be made operational within a very short period of time, relates to the production of brown fused alumina. The claim regarding insufficient Union production capacity is further addressed in Section 7.4.

(38) For these reasons, the Commission considered that brown fused alumina falls within the product scope of the investigation and rejected the claim for its exclusion.

(39) Accordingly, the Commission concluded that all comments received regarding the product scope did not provide sufficient justification for the product exclusions. Consequently, all claims were rejected.

(40) In the absence of any related claim or comment, the conclusions in recitals (49) to (55) of the provisional Regulation were hereby confirmed.

(41) Following provisional disclosure, Abranova, Tyrolit and VDS submitted comments related to the presence of significant distortions.

(42) Abranova rejected the Commission’s reliance on the concept of significant distortions in China. They argued that cost advantages of Chinese producers derive mainly from natural factors: access to raw materials, lower energy costs, and long-standing investments in pollution control technology. They insisted that Union producers’ difficulties are instead due to high electricity prices and dependence on imported raw materials. Abranova strongly contested the view that China’s political system or CPC congress targets amount to proof of systemic distortions in production costs. They stressed that even state-owned and private firms in China must operate profitably and cannot survive on subsidies alone. Therefore, the Commission’s reliance on state influence as evidence of distortions was, in their view, unsubstantiated.