(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.

(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.

(18)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

(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.

(23)

As established in the original investigation, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(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.

(52)

The choice of the representative country was based on the following criteria pursuant to Article 2(6a) 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.

(54)

In the Note, the Commission explained that, due to the absence of cooperation, it would need to rely on facts available according to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The choice of representative country was based on the information contained in the expiry review request, combined with other sources of information deemed appropriate according to the relevant criteria laid down in Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in accordance with Article 18(5) of the basic Regulation, including the World Bank Income Level, Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’), the Turkish Statistical Institute, the President of the Republic of Türkiye Investment Office and Orbis Bureau van Dijk (‘Orbis’).

(55)

Regarding the level of economic development, in the expiry review request, the applicants examined Türkiye as a potential representative country that had a similar level of economic development to the PRC (19). Türkiye was classified by the World Bank as ‘upper-middle income’ country on a gross national income basis where production of the product under review was known to take place.

(56)

Regarding production of the product under review, according to the expiry review request (20), the product under review is produced in Türkiye in significant quantities and allegedly through a similar production process. The product under review is sold on both the domestic and international markets. The Commission also identified Japan, India and Taiwan as producers of the product under review. However, these countries did not fulfil the criteria of having a level of economic development similar to that of the PRC.

(57)

Concerning the availability of relevant data in the representative country, as per the request, data on key production factors, import statistics, and energy prices were readily accessible for Türkiye.

(58)

As explained in the Note and in recital (37), the Commission found one company in Türkiye, Alkim Alkali Kimya, producing the product under review and that was profitable during the most recent financial year 2023 and that had available financial data (21).

(59)

Having established Türkiye as an appropriate representative country based on all of the above elements, there was no need to carry out an assessment of the level of social and environmental protection in accordance with the last sentence of Article 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation

(60)

In the Note, interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of Türkiye as a representative country, of Alkim Alkali Kimya as a producer in Türkiye and on the sources for data. Interested parties were also invited to suggest other countries, provided they submitted sufficient information on the relevant criteria. No comments were received.

(61)

In view of the above analysis, Türkiye met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation in order to be considered as an appropriate representative country

(62)

In the Note, the Commission listed the factors of production such as materials, energy and labour used in the production of the product under review by the Union industry and invited the interested parties to comment and propose readily available information on undistorted values for each of the factors of production mentioned in that note.

(63)

The Commission also stated in the Note that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use GTA to establish the undistorted cost of the factors of production, notably the raw materials.

(64)

In addition, the Commission stated it would use the data from the Turkish Statistical Institute, Trading Economics and the President of Republic of Türkiye Investment Office for establishing undistorted costs of electricity and labour respectively.

(65)

Finally, the Commission stated that to establish SG&A cost and profit, it would use the financial data from the Turkish producer mentioned in recital (37) above.

(66)

The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties concerning the list of factors of production in the Note.

(67)

Considering all the information in the expiry review request and subsequent information submitted by the applicants and collected during the verification visits and in the absence of cooperation by Chinese exporting producers or comments on the Note, the following factors of production and their sources have been identified in order to determine the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

Table 1

Factors of production of persulphates

(68)

In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials as delivered at the gate of a producer in the representative country, the Commission used as a basis the import price to the representative country as reported in the GTA to which import duties and transport costs were added. An import price in the representative country was determined as a weighted average of unit prices of imports from all third countries excluding the PRC and the countries listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council (24). The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it was not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC due to the existence of significant distortions in accordance with Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions did not equally affect raw materials used to manufacture products intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices. After excluding imports from the PRC into the representative country, the volume of imports from other third countries remained representative.

(69)

With regard to import duties, the Commission added import duties to the weighted average import price of each raw material based on its commodity code and the respective country of origin. To determine the applicable import duty rate, the Commission relied on the information collected by Market Access Map (25).

(70)

Considering the lack of cooperation by the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission used readily available information to estimate the cost normally incurred by a company in Türkiye for transport of inputs between a supplier and its premises. The Commission based this estimation on the domestic transport cost relating to imports in Türkiye as published in the most recent Doing Business report (26) (27). This domestic transport cost is included in the undistorted cost presented in Table 1 above.

(71)

After further considerations, the Commission decided to base its determination of labour hours needed to produce 1 tonne of the product under review on the verified data of the applicants. The Commission determined the production of 1 tonne of persulphates requires [8,5–9,0] hours of work. Furthermore, the Commission used the labour cost data for 2022 (28) adjusted for inflation based on labour cost indices (29) as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute to determine the undistorted labour cost in the representative country in the review investigation period. The average hourly labour cost per FTE (30) in the review investigation period amounted to 88,64 CNY/hour.

(72)

The price of electricity for industrial users in Türkiye is published by the Turkish Statistical Institute in its regular press releases. The Commission used the data on the industrial electricity prices in the corresponding consumption band in Kuruş/kWh (31). Information available indicates an average industrial tariff for 2024 (the review investigation period) of 0,61 CNY/kWh (32).

(73)

According to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘the constructed normal value shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’. In addition, a value for manufacturing overhead costs needs to be established to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above.

(74)

In order to establish an undistorted value of the manufacturing overheads and given the absence of cooperation from the exporting producers, the Commission used facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, based on the verified data of the applicants, the Commission established the ratio of manufacturing overheads to the total direct cost, i.e. cost including the consumption of raw materials and energy, and direct and indirect labour cost. This percentage was then applied to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing to obtain the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads, depending on the model produced.

(75)

In order to establish an undistorted value for SG&A cost and for profit, the Commission used the financial data from the Turkish company, Alkim Alkali Kimya. After the publication of the Note, financial results of the company for financial year 2024 became readily available. The company was profitable also in 2024, the year covering the review investigation period. As a result, the following items were added to the undistorted cost of production:

(76)

On the basis of the above, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(77)

First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. In the absence of cooperation by the exporting producers, the Commission relied on the information provided by the applicants in the review request on the usage of each factor (raw materials, electricity and labour) for the production of persulphates. The unit consumption of each factor of production was multiplied by the undistorted cost based on data from the representative country. The sum of undistorted cost of raw materials, electricity and labour represents the undistorted cost of manufacturing.

(78)

Once the undistorted manufacturing cost was established, the Commission added the manufacturing overheads, SG&A cost and profit.

(79)

Manufacturing overheads of the applicants were expressed as a ratio of their cost of manufacturing. This percentage was then applied to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing to obtain the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads. Manufacturing overheads accounted for [20-24] % of the cost of manufacturing. By adding the undistorted manufacturing overheads to the undistorted cost of manufacturing, the Commission established the undistorted cost of production.

(80)

SG&A cost and profit were determined based on the financial information of the Turkish company, Alkim Alkali Kimya, for 2024 as explained in recital (75). SG&A cost and profit accounted for 5,17 % and 9 % of the costs of goods sold respectively. The respective percentages of undistorted SG&A cost and profit were applied on top of the undistorted cost of production.

(81)

On that basis, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. Considering the lack of cooperation by exporting producers, which made it impossible to obtain export price to the Union or to third countries per product type, the Commission determined a single normal value as an average of the normal values established per product type at the level of 9 673,71 CNY/tonne.

(82)

In the absence of cooperation, the Commission established production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC on the basis of information provided in the request for review.

(83)

There were 13 producers of the product under review in the PRC identified during the review investigation period (33). The applicants estimated their production capacity at approximately 400 000 tonnes based on the publicly available information on the Chinese producers’ websites. In the request for review, the applicants estimated that China has a domestic market size of approximately 146 000 tonnes (34) based on market intelligence data (35). Taking into account the size of the Chinese persulphates market, which is served by domestic production and imports, and the exports of the Chinese persulphates producers (36), the spare capacity has been estimated at more than 200 000 tonnes. Production capacity of such magnitude means that China alone could cover the total Union consumption that was around 35 000 tonnes during the review investigation period (37).

(84)

Based on the above, the Commission concluded that China was among the largest producers of persulphates in the world and had significant spare capacity, which could be easily exported to the Union if measures were repealed.

(85)

The Commission determined the normal value as explained in Sections 3.2 to 3.5.

(86)

In the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from the PRC, the export price to third countries was determined based on trade statistics from GTA.

(87)

Accordingly, the Commission identified Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil and Thailand (in the order of export volumes) as the main export markets for Chinese persulphates in the review investigation period. Imports to these four countries represented 54 % of world’s imports of persulphates originating in the PRC.

(88)

The weighted average import price per country (Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand) at CIF level was corrected to ex-works level. Thus, the CIF price was reduced by the sea freight and insurance cost and domestic transport cost.

(89)

The Commission based the reduction of the CIF price to ex-works for sea freight and insurance on the CIF-to-FOB coefficient published by OECD in the ITIC database (38). The applicable average coefficient was determined for each of the three countries individually and based on the product description corresponding to the product under review.

(90)

For Brazil, the import price of persulphates originating in the PRC was available at both, FOB and CIF, level in GTA. Thus, the ex-works price was determined by deducting domestic transport cost from the import price to Brazil at FOB level.

(91)

The Commission estimated the domestic transport cost based on data relating to exports from the PRC as published in the most recent Doing Business report (39).

(92)

The export prices at ex-works level determined as detailed in recitals (86) to (91) ranged from 5 883,33 CNY/tonne for Brazil to 6 481,25 CNY/tonne for Thailand.

(93)

The Commission compared the constructed normal value established in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the export price to third countries on an ex-works basis.

(94)

The Commission further expressed the price difference as a percentage of the CIF price prevailing in each of the major export markets.

(95)

On this basis, the Commission concluded that the PRC exported persulphates to the key export market at a price that was significantly below the normal value. The price difference expressed as a percentage of the import price to the four key markets at CIF level ranged from 44,1 % for Thailand to 57,2 % for Taiwan.

(96)

The Commission considered that those findings reflect the pricing behaviour of Chinese exporters of persulphates on export markets in general. The Commission concluded that the Chinese exports to the Union were likely to be made at dumped prices should the measures cease to exist.

(97)

According to the request for review (40), the Union market is potentially attractive for Chinese exporters because of its relatively large size and higher prices, which can yield higher profits then other third countries. The Union sales price in the review investigation period ([1 500-2 000] EUR/tonne) was [1,8-2,3] times higher than the Chinese export prices (recalculated to the CIF Union frontier level) to the four key markets. Although Chinese export volumes to the Union have shrunk over recent years, Chinese producers manufacture significant volumes of the product under review and, would reinstate exports to the Union if the measures were allowed to lapse.

(98)

In addition, there are trade defence measures in place in the US, while India is currently conducting an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of persulphates. As a result, exports of Chinese persulphates to those markets are/will possibly be more difficult, further increasing the attractiveness of the Union market where these exports may be redirected should the measures be allowed to expire.

(99)

Therefore, if the existing measures in the EU were to lapse, Chinese producers would be strongly motivated to boost their exports of persulphates to the Union and would likely do so at dumped prices.

(100)

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that there is a likelihood that dumping would recur if the current measures were allowed to lapse. In particular the level of the normal values established for China, the level of export prices to third country markets, the attractiveness of the Union market and the availability of significant production capacity in the PRC point to a strong likelihood of recurrence of dumping in case the current measures are repealed.

(101)

The like product was manufactured by two producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(102)

To protect confidentiality under Article 19 of the basic Regulation the data relating to the two Union producers is presented in indexed form or in ranges.

(103)

Information on imports have been analysed at CN code level for the three main types of the like product, ammonium persulphate, sodium persulphate, potassium persulphate, and on TARIC code level for the fourth type, potassium peroxymonosulphate.

(104)

The Commission established the Union consumption based on the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market, and import data from Eurostat, at CN code and TARIC code level. These sales volumes were cross-checked and updated when necessary, as regards verified information from the Union producers.

(105)

Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption

(106)

Over the period considered, the Union consumption decreased by 26 %. This decrease was the strongest in the first two years of the period considered and can be attributed to the general economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to this recovery, 2021 was a booming year for most industries, including the downstream industry for persulphates, followed by a slowdown correction in the construction and disinfection sectors which are among users of the product under review after the pandemic. In addition, in 2022 and 2023 there was a reduction in inventory across all sectors, as the supply chain situation has generally eased and large inventories have been built up in times of the pandemic with the disrupted supply chains. Year 2024 (the review investigation period), however, was characterised by a slight recovery of the market.

(107)

The Commission established the volume of imports based on Eurostat, which showed a minimal quantity of imports from the country concerned into the Union market during the review investigation period.

(108)

Imports from the country concerned decreased dramatically during the period considered. This decrease was likely linked to the imposition of measures in 2020 on the company that was originally exempt from anti-dumping measures.

(109)

Imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume and market share

(110)

Given that the volume of imports from the country concerned was insignificant, the Commission found that prices were unrepresentative. As a consequence, the Commission considered that it would not be meaningful to analyse the price evolution of the dumped imports. For the same reason, it was not meaningful to calculate price undercutting of those imports.

(111)

The volume of imports into the Union as well as the market share and price trends for imports of peroxosulphates from other third countries developed as follows:

Table 4

Imports from third countries

(112)

The imports of the product under review from other third countries decreased by 30 % during the period considered. The largest volume of imports originated in Türkiye, India and the United States of America.

(113)

Imports from Türkiye were high throughout the period considered, although volumes varied. There was a large decrease in imports from Türkiye in 2023, but imports rose again in the review investigation period. Imports from India and the United States of America decreased over the period considered and were down by 46 % and 35 % respectively, during the review investigation period.

(114)

The market share of third countries also decreased from 35,6 % in 2021 to 33,5 % in the review investigation period.

(115)

The price of imports from all the third countries except the PRC, compared to those of the Union industry, was [50-200] EUR/kg lower during the review investigation period.

(116)

Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(117)

The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 5

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(118)

The total Union production of the product under review decreased steadily in 2022 and 2023 and slightly recovered in the review investigation period. Overall, the production decreased by 32 % during the period considered. This decrease in production can be attributed to a post-COVID correction in demand after the year 2021.

(119)

The total Union production capacity dropped by 9 % over the period considered. The apparent change in capacity was mainly the result of supply chain issues and periodic closures and restarts of production lines.

(120)

The average capacity utilisation followed a similar trend as the production and demand. Overall, the capacity utilisation decreased by 25 % during the period considered, with a decrease in the first two years of the period considered and a recovery during the review investigation period.

(121)

The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Sales volume and market share

(122)

The Union industry’s sales volume followed a similar trend as the Union consumption. Overall, the Union industry’s sales volume decreased by 23 % during the period considered, with a decrease in the first two years and a beginning of a recovery during the review investigation period.

(123)

The total Union industry’s market share remained rather stable over the period considered with a steady but very small year-on-year increase.

(124)

The decrease in consumption was 26 % during the period considered. Against this background the Union industry managed to maintain its market share and to record a modest increase of 3 % over the period considered.

(125)

Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 7

Employment and productivity

(126)

Employment decreased by 18 % throughout the period considered. Productivity of the Union producers’ workforce, measured as output (tonnes) per person employed per year, also decreased by 16 % explained by the higher decrease of production (–31 %) in relation to the decrease in employment (–18 %).

(127)

As explained above, there were hardly any imports from the PRC during the period considered, and therefore the magnitude of dumping margin could not be assessed.

(128)

The fact the Union industry was able to keep and slightly increase its market share over the period considered, against the background of increased costs due to the dramatic increase of energy in the Union, could be attributed to the existing measures.

(129)

The weighted average unit sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Sales prices and cost of production in the Union (EUR/tonne)

(130)

Over the period considered, the cost of production of the Union industry increased by 44 %. The massive increase of the cost of production in 2022 and 2023 was mainly caused by the unusual increase of energy prices, which was the main cost driver of the production of the like product in the Union. Moreover, the contraction in demand, as explained in recital (106), resulted in an increase of the indirect costs (manufacturing overhead costs) on a per unit basis. At the same time, prices increased by only 12 % so the Union industry was not able to cover the cost increase.

(131)

Stock levels of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 9

Inventories

(132)

The volumes of closing stock, with the exception of 2022, followed the trend of production. Overall, Union producers kept a low level of stocks (below 10 % of production).

(133)

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

(134)

The Commission established the profitability of the Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. Profitability of the Union producers declined strongly going down from a very healthy profitability in 2021 to heavily lossmaking in 2023. During the review investigation period, profitability started to improve but did not reach break-even point. This trend was in line with the ones previously described for production and sales in recitals (118) and (122).

(135)

The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow declined sharply during 2022 and 2023, when the net cash flow halved in each of those years. In the review investigation period, the net cash flow started to stabilise although at a very low level, about 81 percentage points below the start of the period considered.

(136)

Investments remained at a comparable level during the first three years of the period considered and declined strongly during the review investigation period. This was a direct result of the declining profitability and cash flow. Indeed, in the first years of the period considered, the situation of the Union industry, although significantly deteriorating, still allowed for investments. After the loss-making year 2023, investments in the next year became compromised.

(137)

The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. It developed in the same way as the profitability, as described in recital (134) above.

(138)

The volume of imports from the country concerned were negligible over the period considered.

(139)

The evolution of the micro and macro indicators during the period considered showed that the overall situation for the Union industry was injurious. During the period considered, most of the indicators showed a negative trend, with the financial ones such as profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments showing the most pronounced negative evolution.

(140)

The Union industry was affected by the drop in consumption over the period considered and also by the raising energy costs during the period considered. As consumption picked up, and the cost of production decreased, the economic situation of the Union industry showed some signs of recovery in the review investigation period.

(141)

The fact that the Union industry benefited from the measures is illustrated, only by the maintenance and the small increase of its market share during the period considered, over a parallel contraction in demand.

(142)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry was in a vulnerable situation, but did not suffer material injury, by the impact of dumped imports, within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.

(143)

The Commission concluded in the above section that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period. While the imports from the country concerned during the period considered, in view of their low volumes were not the direct cause of the injurious situation of the Union industry, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures against were allowed to lapse.

(144)

In this regard, the Commission relied on the information made available by the applicants and any other information available on file. The Commission examined the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC; the relation between Chinese export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union, the likely price levels of imports from PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures, and their impact on the Union industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

(145)

As concluded in recital (83), producers in the PRC have significant production capacities and significant estimated spare capacity which largely exceeds the total Union consumption during the review investigation period.

(146)

The Union is worldwide the largest importer of the product under review (41).

(147)

In addition, trade defence measures against the Chinese exports of the product under review are in place or in the course to be placed in other third countries, such as the USA and India, making it more difficult for Chinese exporting producers to export to these markets, which further increases the attractiveness of the Union market where these exports may be redirected.

(148)

Another element demonstrating the attractiveness of the Union market is the pricing strategy of Chinese exporting producers. In this context an analysis was performed on the basis of a comparison between the sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers and the CIF prices charged by the Chinese producers to third countries, adjusted for post-importation costs (1 %) and conventional duties (5,5 %). This analysis was based on all Chinese export prices as reported to third countries (Union excluded) in the Global Trade Atlas. This analysis showed that the Chinese export prices were 47 % to 52 % below the sales prices of the Union producers. Therefore, it can be reasonably expected that the Chinese exports will enter the Union market at prices considerably lower than the ones charged by the Union industry and will cause injury to the Union industry should the measures be allowed to lapse.

(149)

Moreover, the circumvention practices established by Regulation (EU) 2020/477, for the manufacturers of the product concerned in the PRC, is another element demonstrating the attractiveness of the Union market.

(150)

Given the high spare capacities in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market and the pricing behaviour of Chinese exporting producers as summarised above in recitals (145) to (149), it is likely that significant volumes of low-priced peroxosulphates would be available for sale/redirection to the Union already in the short term in case the measures were allowed to lapse.

(151)

As a consequence, the Union industry, which is currently capable of satisfying the Union demand, is likely to lose sales volume as well as market shares on the Union market.

(152)

On this basis, it is concluded that the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to recur.

(153)

As concluded in Section 4 above, the Union industry is no longer suffering from material injury. However, as concluded in Section 5, a repeal of the measures would result of a renewed influx of dumped imports from China which would quickly result in a recurrence of injury. Therefore, the continuation of measures would benefit the Union industry because the Union producers should be able to maintain its sales volumes, market share, improve its profitability and its overall economic situation. By contrast, the discontinuation of the measures could threaten the viability of the Union industry because there are reasons to expect a shift of the Chinese exports to the Union market at dumped prices and in considerable volumes that would cause recurrence of injury.

(154)

No importers cooperated with the investigation.

(155)

The lack of cooperation of importers did not allow the Commission to analyse whether importers were performing badly or unable to pass on price increases, if any.

(156)

The investigation confirmed that importers can easily buy from different sources that are currently available on the market, in particular from Türkiye, India and the United States of America. The extension of the measures is not intended to exclude Chinese exports from the market, but only to ensure that those exports are not sold at dumped prices, thereby causing injury.

(157)

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that would invalidate this finding and considering that imports of the product concerned were insignificant during the review investigation period, the Commission concluded that importers would not be disproportionally affected by continuing the measures.

(158)

Users did not cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the Commission was not in a position to analyse the impact of existing measures on their situation.

(159)

The original investigation revealed that the impact of the product under review on the costs of downstream products is rather marginal and the effect of the anti-dumping duty was negligible (42). The users provided no information which would invalidate the conclusions reached in previous investigations that the impact of the duty on their business would be marginal.

(160)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of peroxosulphates originating in the PRC.

(161)

On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on likelihood of recurrence of dumping, likelihood of recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on persulphates from the PRC should be maintained.

(162)

To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The company with the low individual anti-dumping duty must present a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China’.

(163)

While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(164)

Should the exports by the company benefiting from the lower individual duty rate increase significantly in volume after the continuation of imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of the individual duty rate and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(165)

A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (43). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(166)

All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received.

(167)

In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (44) when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(168)

The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,