See Full Document Text
Official Journal EN
of the European Union L series
2025/2216 5.11.2025
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION(EU) 2025/2216
of 4 November 2025
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China
following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) 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(3) thereof,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Previous investigations and measures in force
(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005(2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of trichloroiso
cyanuric acid (‘TCCA’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) and the United States of
America (‘USA’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will, hereinafter, be referred to
as ‘the original investigation’.
(2) Following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council by Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 855/2010(3), lowered the individual duty applicable to Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Ltd. (‘Heze
Huayi’), from 14,1 % to 3,2 %.
(3) Following an expiry review of the measures limited to imports of TCCA originating in the PRC (‘first expiry review’)
initiated on 6 October 2010, the Council re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of
TCCA originating in China by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1389/2011(4).
(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 of 3 October 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United States
of America (OJ L 261, 7.10.2005, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/1631/oj).
(3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 855/2010 of 27 September 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1631/2005 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
(OJ L 254, 29.9.2010, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2010/855/oj).
(4) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1389/2011 of 19 December 2011 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 346, 30.12.2011, p. 6, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/1389/oj).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 1/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(4) On 28 August 2013 and 1 July 2014 respectively, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated two new
exporter reviews pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. By Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 569/2014(5), the Commission imposed an individual duty of 32,8 % on TCCA manufactured by one new
Chinese exporting producer(6). The other Chinese exporting producer(7) formally withdrew its request during the
investigation and consequently the Commission terminated the investigation by Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2015/392(8).
(5) Following an expiry review (‘the second expiry review’) initiated on 20 December 2016, the Commission re-imposed
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2017/2230(9).
(6) The Commission initiated, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1209(10), three ‘new exporter’
reviews pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. On 13 April 2022, the investigation was terminated by
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/619(11).
(7) Following an expiry review (the ‘third expiry review’) initiated on 5 December 2022, the Commission re-imposed the
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC by Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2023/2757(12).
(8) On 31 March 2023, the Commission initiated, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/712(13), a ‘new exporter’
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. On 13 December 2023, the investigation was terminated
by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2766(14)after the applicant withdrew its request.
(5) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 569/2014 of 23 May 2014 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 1389/2011 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of
China following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 157, 27.5.2014,
p. 80, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2014/569/oj).
(6) Liaocheng City Zhonglian Industry Co. Ltd.
(7) Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. Ltd.
(8) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/392 of 9 March 2015 terminating a new exporter review of Council Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 1389/2011 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the
People’s Republic of China, re-imposing the duty with regard to imports from the exporter and terminating the registration of these
imports (OJ L 65, 10.3.2015, p. 18, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/392/oj).
(9) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 of 4 December 2017 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of
trichloroisocyanuric acid 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 (OJ L 319, 5.12.2017, p. 10, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/
reg_impl/2017/2230/oj).
(10) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1209 of 22 July 2021 initiating ‘new exporter’ reviews of Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2017/2230 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic
of China for three Chinese exporting producers, repealing the duty with regard to imports from these exporting producers and
making these imports subject to registration (OJ L 263, 23.7.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1209/oj).
(11) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/619 of 12 April 2022 terminating the ‘new exporter’ reviews of Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the
People’s Republic of China, for three Chinese exporting producers, imposing the duty with regard to these producers’ imports and
terminating the registration of these imports (OJ L 115, 13.4.2022, p. 66, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/619/oj).
(12) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757 of 13 December 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2023/2757, 14.12.2023 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/
eli/reg_impl/2023/2757/oj).
(13) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/712 of 30 March 2023 initiating a new exporter review of Implementing Regulation
(EU) 2017/2230 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic
of China for one Chinese exporting producer, repealing the duty with regard to imports from that exporting producer and making
these imports subject to registration (OJ L 93, 31.3.2023, p. 88, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/712/2023-12-15.
(14) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2766 of 13 December 2023 terminating the new exporter review of Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2017/2230 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the
People’s Republic of China, for a Chinese exporting producer, and terminating the registration of the imports of this exporting
producer (OJ L, 2023/2766, 14.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2766/oj).
2/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(9) The individual anti-dumping duties currently in force on imports of TCCA originating in the PRC range between
3,2 % and 40,5 %. The anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporting producers amounts to 42,6 %.
1.2. Request for an interim review
(10) The Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation(15)(‘the request’).
(11) The request was lodged on 19 March 2024 by ERCROS S.A. and Electroquímica de Hernani S.A. (‘the applicants’) on
behalf of the Union industry of TCCA in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The review request was
limited in scope to the examination of dumping. The request was based on sufficient evidence provided by the
applicants that, as far as dumping is concerned, the circumstances on the basis of which the existing measures were
imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. In particular, the applicants claimed that since
the original investigation there has been a significant growth in the TCCA Chinese industry in terms of the number
of the Chinese exporting producers and the existing production capacities of the product concerned. The applicants
also claimed that the increased number of Chinese exporting producers, and consequently, the increased Chinese
overcapacities have led prices to drop due to intensive competition among them. The applicants provided evidence
that, since the original investigation, the average Chinese import price into the Union increased at a lower rate than
the Chinese inflation rate for the same period.
1.3. Initiation of an interim review
(12) On 6 August 2024, the Commission initiated a partial interim review concerning imports of TCCA originating in
People’s Republic of China(16)pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation. The partial interim review is limited
in scope to the examination of dumping.
1.3.1. Comments on initiation
(13) On 12 September 2024, Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd. (the ‘Hebei Jiheng Group’), Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway
Chemicals Co. Ltd. (‘Puyang Cleanway’), as the Alliance of TCCA Exporting Producers (‘ATEP’) submitted comments
on the request and the initiation of the review. On 9 December 2024, the applicants provided a reaction to these
comments. On 19 December 2024, Hebei Jiheng, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway submitted a response to the
applicants’ comments.
(14) The Hebei Jiheng Group, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway claimed that the arguments and data submitted by the
applicants ‘did not justify the continuation of the review’ because there was no sufficient evidence of changes of a
lasting nature for the TCCA industry in China.
(15) They further claimed that, in case the review was allowed to proceed, its scope should cover a recalculation of the
injury margin as well.
(15) Footnote 1.
(16) Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid
originating in People’s Republic of China (OJ C, C/2024/4917, 6.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4917/oj).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 3/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(16) The Commission considered that the interim review request included sufficient evidence that the circumstances
concerning dumping have changed significantly as required by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation to justify the
initiation of an interim review. The Commission recalled that the standard to initiate an interim review pursuant to
Article 11(3) is lower than for imposing definitive measures, for the latter, it assessed the lasting nature of the
changes during the investigation, see recitals (119) to (127).
(17) Regarding the claim that the review should also cover a recalculation of the injury margin, the Commission recalled
that there was no evidence on the file supporting the view that the injury margin established in the original
investigation was no longer accurate. In particular, the ATEP alleged that the long-term changes in the Chinese TCCA
industry should be evaluated in light of their potential impact on the Union industry’s price. In addition, it argued
that the Union industry has increased its production capacity, its domestic and export sales which allegedly
influenced its pricing strategies on both domestic and export markets. Finally, it considered that the Union also
implemented strategies that did not exist at the time of the original investigation, notably the ‘Transition Pathway for
the Chemical Industry’ (‘TPCI’).
(18) However, the Commission found that this claim was unsubstantiated by only relying on a broad claim that the two
markets are interconnected and on strategies (the TPCI) that are still to be adopted. The ATEP did neither provide
sufficient evidence showing that the injury margin calculated in the original investigation would no longer be needed
at its current level to offset the injurious effects of dumping, nor with regard to the data used to calculate this margin.
In other words, the interested parties did not provide sufficient evidence justifying the initiation of a review covering
the injury, nor was such evidence available to the Commission. Therefore, there was no evidence available to the
Commission suggesting that the injury margins established previously were no longer representative of the injury
suffered by the EU industry. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
1.4. Review investigation period
(19) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period
or RIP’).
1.5. Interested parties
(20) 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 known producers, exporters and the authorities
of the PRC, known importers, users, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the interim
review, and invited them to participate.
(21) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the interim review and to request a hearing
with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
1.6. Sampling
(22) In order to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known
exporting producers in China and unrelated importers in the Union to provide the information specified in the
Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the
European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating
in the investigation.
(23) Two exporting producers, the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Cleanway, representing 72 % of the total volume of
TCCA exports in the RIP, provided the requested sampling information and agreed to be included in the sample. In
view of the low number of cooperating exporting producers, the Commission decided that sampling was not
necessary.
4/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(24) No unrelated importer provided the requested sampling information. The Commission concluded that it was not
necessary to sample unrelated importers in this proceeding, either.
1.7. Replies to the questionnaire
(25) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning
of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the government of China (‘GOC’).
(26) The Commission sent questionnaires to the Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Cleanway. The same questionnaires had
also been made available online on the day of the initiation(17).
(27) After the verification of the questionnaire reply of the Hebei Jiheng Group, it became evident that the questionnaire
reply only covered the consolidated production of two related exporting producers, Hebei Ji Heng Bai Kang
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd (‘Bai Kang’) and Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd. (‘Jiheng’). The Commission sent separate
questionnaires to Bai Kang and Jiheng, requesting a reply on an individual basis.
(28) The Commission sent a questionnaire to AMIK Italia S.p.A. (‘AMIK’) an unrelated importer that made itself known,
receiving a partial reply. The Commission received an unsolicited partial reply to the questionnaire for unrelated
importers from Productos QP, S.A.
1.8. Verification
(29) The Commission verified the questionnaire reply of the following exporting producers:
Exporting producers in the PRC:
— Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd., Hengshui, PRC.
— Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. Ltd., Puyang, PRC.
(30) Further to the submission of separate questionnaire replies, the Commission also carried out remote crosscheck of
the following exporting producer:
Exporting producer in the PRC:
— Hebei Ji Heng Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Haixing, PRC.
1.9. Subsequent procedure
(31) On 2 September 2025, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it
intended to revise the level of anti-dumping duties. All parties were granted a period within which they could make
comments on the disclosure.
(32) 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.
2. PRODUCT UNDER REVIEW, PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
2.1. Product under review
(33) The product under review is the same as in in the original investigation and previous expiry reviews namely
trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof, also referred to under the international non-proprietary name
(INN) ‘symclosene’.
(17) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2744.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 5/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
2.2. Product concerned
(34) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review, originating in the PRC currently falling
under CN codes ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933 69 80 70 and 3808 94 20 20).
2.3. Like product
(35) As established in the original investigation, as well as in the previous expiry review, this partial interim review
investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical
characteristics, as well as the same basic uses:
— the product concerned when exported to the Union,
— the product under review produced and sold by the exporting producers on the domestic market of the PRC,
— the product under review produced and sold by the exporting producers to the rest of the world, and
— the product under review produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry.
(36) The Commission concluded that these products are, therefore, considered to be like products within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
3. DUMPING
3.1. Preliminary remarks
(37) As set out in recital (46), the Commission concluded that it was not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in
China to establish normal value with respect to the imports of TCCA from the PRC, due to the existence of
significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. Imports from China
continued during the RIP, more than 32 thousand tons of TCCA were imported.
(38) 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, 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.
3.2. Dumping
3.2.1. Procedure for the determination of the normal value under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation for the imports of
TCCA originating in the PRC
(39) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation showing 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 of dumping on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.
(40) In order to obtain information 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. 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, 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.
6/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(41) 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 Mexico 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.
(42) On 10 January 2025, the Commission informed interested parties by a note(18) (‘the First Note’) on the relevant
sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In the First Note, the Commission provided a
list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of TCCA. In
addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified
possible representative countries, namely Mexico and Indonesia. The Commission received comments from the
Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Clenway, as well as the applicants.
(43) On 5 March 2025, after having analysed the comments received, the Commission issued a Second Note(19)on the
sources for the determination of the normal value (‘the Second Note’). In the Second Note, the Commission
informed interested parties about the relevant sources intended for the determination of the normal value using
Indonesia as the representative country under Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation. It also informed
interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs and profits based on publicly
available financial statements of P.T. Pindo Deli (‘Pindo Deli’), a TCCA producer in Indonesia. The Commission
invited interested parties to comment on the Second Note. Comments were received from the Hebei Jiheng Group
and Puyang Clenway. The arguments of the parties are addressed in Section 3.2.2.4 below.
3.2.2. Normal value
(44) 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’.
(45) 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 referred hereinafter as ‘SG&A’).
(46) 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 comments by the exporting producers on this
issue, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.
3.2.2.1. Existence of significant distortions
(47) 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. The analysis covered the following evidentiary elements of the various criteria relevant to
establishing the existence of significant distortions.
(48) First, the evidence in the request included the following elements pointing to the existence of significant distortions.
(18) Note on sources for the determination of the normal value (First FOP note), t25.000559.
(19) Note on sources for the determination of the normal value (Second FOP note), t25.003076.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 7/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(49) The applicant noted that significant distortions exist with respect to all the elements of the cost of production of
TCCA. Furthermore, the applicant argued that the situation which was prevailing at the time of the Commission’s
most recent expiry review regarding imports of TCCA in China(20)has not changed.
(50) Specifically, the applicant argued that the Chinese market of the product under review is served by enterprises
operating under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the Chinese authorities. With regard to
this, the applicant remarked that many producers of the product under review are fully or partially State-owned.
Additionally, it also noted that the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP’) interferes in the decision-making of private
entities, exercising a de facto control on their activity(21).
(51) The applicant also argued that Chinese state presence in TCCA producers allows the state to interfere with respect to
prices and costs. It reaffirmed the state interference, not only through SOEs but also through CCP members in
managerial positions of private companies. In fact, the applicant noted that state interference is evidenced in all
factors of production of the product under review(22).
(52) Additionally, the applicant noted that the raw materials used in the manufacturing of TCCA are organic and inorganic
chemicals. With regard to this, it stated that the chemical sector is among those particularly promoted by the
GOC(23). This is due to its drive for self-sufficiency, and incentive to create high value-added products, for example
TCCA. The applicant also noted that other countries have also stated the existence of subsidisation of TCCA in
China which has characterised the market since 2012.
(53) The applicant noted that distortions affect also energy, labour and machinery used to produce the product under
review. The applicant also indicated that the Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the
Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations (‘the Report’)
mentioned that over 50 % of the energy suppliers are State-owned, and that the transmission’s grid is fully owned by
two SOEs(24). Moreover, it pointed out past cases in which the Commission noted the distortions of energy prices in
the chemical sector. Additionally, the Commission found that upstream sectors of the product under review,
including the chemical sector, are affected by distortions of wage costs both directly and indirectly(25). Additionally,
the applicant stated that certain domestic enterprises and foreign invested enterprises are exempted from VAT and
tariffs on imported equipment. Such programme aims at encouraging foreign investments and introducing advanced
equipment from abroad to upgrade industrial technology(26).
(54) The applicant pointed out other significant distortions, such as income tax deductions. For example, according to
Article 33 of the Chinese Enterprise Income Tax Law, enterprises that manufacture products that are in line with
State Industrial Policy and involve synergistic utilisation of resources, may be entitled to a tax reduction. The
applicant noted that all strategic sectors can benefit from such provisions and considering that the chemical sector
has been identified as a key sector, chemical producers, and TCCA producers specifically, can benefit from such tax
advantage.
(20) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 97-99 and 113-114.
(21) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 66-73.
(22) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 69-73.
(23) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 66-57.
(24) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of
Trade Defence Investigations, SWD (2024) 91 of 10 April 2024, p. 217-235.
(25) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180 of 16 October 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/607
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports
of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following a new exporter review pursuant to
Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2023/2180, 17.10.2023, ELI: http://
data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2180/oj), recital 121.
(26) Catalogue of Encouraged Industries for Foreign Investment (2020).
8/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(55) Furthermore, the applicant indicated that the Chinese authorities maintain public policies or measures discriminating
in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces. The applicant also argued that the 14th
FYP on raw materials promotes production capacity increase in the urea, ammonium phosphate, calcium carbide,
caustic soda and yellow phosphorus sectors. It also pointed out that caustic soda, one the main raw materials for
manufacturing the product under review, is listed in the 2019 Guiding Catalogue for Industry Structural Adjustment
among the controlled industries(27).
(56) The applicant also underlined the lack, discriminatory or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy, corporate or
property laws. As already highlighted in the third expiry review, the Chinese’s system is still characterised by a
systematic under-enforcement of bankruptcy law and strong involvement of the state in insolvency proceedings(28).
(57) The request also underlined that the wage costs in China are distorted in general and specifically in the TCCA sector.
The applicant remarked that the labour market in the PRC does not operate on market-based wages, as it has not
ratified a number of essential ILO conventions(29).
(58) Finally, the applicant noted that significant distortions are also present in relation to access to finance granted by
institutions which implement public policy objectives or otherwise not acting independently form the State. It
remarked that SOBs operate according to public policy objectives, and not according to the economic viability of the
economic operators. As already noted in the most recent expiry review, even private commercial banking decisions
must be supervised by the CCP and remain in line with national policies. It also remarked that borrowing costs have
been kept artificially low to stimulate investment growth. Artificially low interest rates result in under-pricing, and
consequently, the excessive utilisation of capital.
(59) Second, in recent investigations concerning the chemical sector in the PRC(30), 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(31). 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(32)but the GOC is also in a position to interfere with prices and
(27) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 74-80.
(28) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 92-93.
(29) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757, recitals 85-86.
(30) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959 of 17 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
erythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/1959, 19.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/
1959/oj); Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752 of 12 April 2023
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate originating in the People’s Republic of China following an
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ L 100, 13.4.2023, p. 16, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/
reg_impl/2023/752/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441 of 11 March 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2)
of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (OJ L 85, 12.3.2021, p. 154, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/441/oj).
(31) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 161-162; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 89-90; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 70; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recital 99.
(32) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959 recitals 103-113; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 46-50; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 49, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 59-65.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 9/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation(33). 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(34). 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(35). 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(36), 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(37).
(60) Third, in the most recent expiry review concerning the product under review(38) 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, capable of affecting that conclusion, are
known to the Commission.
(61) Fourth, additional evidence available in the Report pointed to the existence of significant distortions also during the
review investigation period.
(62) Fifth, no evidence or arguments to the contrary have been adduced by the GOC or the exporting producers in the
present investigation.
(63) 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.
(33) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 114-122; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 51-55; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 50-54; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 66-68. While the right to appoint and to
remove key management personnel in SOEs by the relevant State authorities, as provided for in the Chinese legislation, can be
considered to reflect the corresponding ownership rights, CCP cells in enterprises, State-owned and private alike, represent another
important channel through which the State can interfere with business decisions. According to Chinese company law, a CCP
organisation is to be established in every company (with at least three CCP members as specified in the CCP Constitution) and the
company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organisation. In the past, this requirement appears not to
have always been followed or strictly enforced. However, since at least 2016 the CCP has reinforced its claims to control business
decisions in SOEs as a matter of political principle. The CCP is also reported to exercise pressure on private companies to put
‘patriotism’ first and to follow party discipline. In 2017, it was reported that party cells existed in 70 % of some 1,86 million privately
owned companies, with growing pressure for the CCP organisations to have a final say over the business decisions within their
respective companies. These rules are of general application throughout the Chinese economy, across all sectors, including to the
producers of the product under review and the suppliers of their inputs.
(34) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 123-133; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 56-65; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 55-63; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 69-79.
(35) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 134-138; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 66-69; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 64; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 80-83.
(36) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 139-142; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 71-72; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 65; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 84-85.
(37) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 143-152; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 72-81; Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 66; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441, recitals 86-95.
(38) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757.
10/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
3.2.2.2. Representative country
(64) The choice of the representative country was based on the following criteria pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic
Regulation:
— A level of economic development similar to the PRC. For this purpose, the Commission used countries with a
gross national income per capita similar to the PRC on the basis of the database of the World Bank(39),
— Production of the product under review in that country(40),
— Availability of relevant public data in the representative country,
— Where there is more than one possible representative country, preference should be given, where appropriate,
to the country with an adequate level of social and environmental protection.
(65) As explained in recitals (42) and (43), the Commission issued two notes for the file on the sources for the
determination of the normal value. These notes described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria, and
addressed the comments received by the parties on these elements and on the relevant sources. In the Second Note,
the Commission informed interested parties of its intention to consider Indonesia as an appropriate representative
country in the present case if the existence of significant distortions pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation
would be confirmed.
3.2.2.3. A level of economic development similar to the PRC
(66) In the First Note on production factors, the Commission identified Mexico and Indonesia as countries with a similar
level of economic development as the PRC where the product under review was produced according to the World
Bank, i.e. they are all classified by the World Bank as ‘upper-middle income’ countries on a gross national income
basis, where production of the product under review was known to take place.
(67) No comments were received concerning the countries identified in that note.
3.2.2.4. Availability of relevant readily available data in the representative country
(68) In the First Note, the Commission indicated that for the countries identified as countries where the product under
review is being produced, i.e. Mexico and Indonesia, the availability of public data needed to be further verified, in
particular in Mexico, with regard to the public financial data for producers of TCCA.
(69) In Mexico, the Commission identified one company producing the product under investigation, namely ROT
Química but could not identify readily available financial data for this company.
(70) In Indonesia, the Commission identified one company producing the product under investigation, namely Pindo Deli
and found readily available audited financial data covering the review investigation period for this company.
(71) Puyang Cleanway and the Hebei Jiheng Group submitted that Pindo Deli was exclusively involved with paper
products and did not produce or sell TCCA or products in the same general category.
(72) The Commission confirmed that Pindo Deli’s main business was paper products manufacturing. This company,
however, also had a chemical division producing and selling TCCA. Puyang Cleanway and the Hebei Jiheng Group
did not provide any evidence pointing to the contrary.
(39) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income.
(40) If there is no production of the product under review in any country with a similar level of development, production of a product in
the same general category and/or sector of the product under review may be considered.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 11/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(73) In view of the above, the Commission considered Pindo Deli a producer of the product under review in a potential
representative country.
(74) The Hebei Jiheng Group commented that the Commission should disclose the financial data for the individual
company, rather than consolidated figures for Pindo Deli and its subsidiaries.
(75) The Commission noted that no data was publicly available for Pindo Deli separately, due to the consolidation with
subsidiaries. Hence, the Commission looked for the closest readily available proxy, including consolidated
information of producers active, among others in the sector including the product under review.
(76) The Hebei Jiheng Group did not provide evidence that the consolidated SG&A costs and profit identified for Pindo
Deli would not be appropriate or that they would lead to establishing amounts that were not reasonable. The
Commission, therefore, concluded that such data were sufficiently representative and reasonable to be applied for
the purposes of the present investigation. Consequently, the Commission rejected the claim of the Hebei Jiheng
Group.
(77) In the light of the above considerations, the Commission informed the interested parties with the Second Note of its
intention to use Indonesia as an appropriate representative country and Pindo Deli as the suitable company, in
accordance with Article 2(6a)(a), first ident of the basic Regulation in order to source undistorted prices or
benchmarks, SG&A costs and profit for the calculation of normal value.
(78) Interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of Indonesia as a representative country and of
Pindo Deli as a producer in the representative country.
(79) Following the Second Note, Puyang Cleanway and the Hebei Jiheng Group requested the Commission to ‘double
check’ whether the consolidated financial statements of Pindo Deli relied upon by the Commission covered its
chemical division or not. They argued that the subsidiaries listed in the financial statement(41) did not include the
company, P. T. Cakrawala Mega Indah, listed under the contacts tab on the website of Pindo Deli(42).
(80) The Commission complied and found that P. T. Cakrawala Mega Indah was the sales office of the chemical division of
Pindo Deli, and, hence, an integral part of Pindo Deli, and, as such, covered by the financial statements.
3.2.2.5. Level of social and environmental protection
(81) Having established that Indonesia was the only available 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.
3.2.2.6. Conclusion
(82) In view of the above analysis, Indonesia 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.
3.2.2.7. Sources used to establish undistorted costs
(83) In the First 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 exporting producers and invited the interested parties to comment
and propose publicly available information on undistorted values for each of the factors of production mentioned in
that note.
(41) P. T. Pindo Deli Consolidated Financial Statements With Independent Auditor’s Report, pg. 11-12, Investor | APP Group.
(42) https://app.co.id/in/-/pindo-deli-chemical.
12/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(84) Subsequently, in the Second Note, the Commission stated that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance
with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’)(43) to establish the
undistorted cost of raw materials. In addition, the Commission stated that it would use the data published by the
Badan Pusat Statistik for establishing undistorted costs of labour(44), prices published by the Perusahan Listrik
Negara for electricity(45)and data by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources for gas(46).
(85) In the Second Note, the Commission also informed interested parties that due to the negligible weight of some of the
raw materials in the total cost of production, these negligible items were grouped under ‘consumables’. Further, the
Commission informed that it would calculate the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials
and apply this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted
benchmarks in the appropriate representative country.
3.2.2.8. Factors of production
(86) Considering all the information in the request for review and subsequent information submitted by interested parties,
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 TCCA
Commodity
Unit of
Factor of Production Code in Undistorted value (CNY) Source of information
measurement
Indonesia
Raw materials
Cyanuric acid Not found in 12,55 KG Constructed based on the
the Indonesian price of urea from GTA (IHS
nomenclature. Markit)(47)
Urea 310210 5,28 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Chlorine 28110 4,08 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Liquid Caustic Soda 281512 2,60 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Raw Salt 25010093 0,34 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Hydrogen 280410 0,95 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Sulfuric acid 28070010 0,30 KG GTA (IHS Markit)
Consumables
Labour
Labour N/A 12,62 Hours Badan Pusat Statistik(48)
(43) https://connect.ihsmarkit.com/gtas/gta/standard-reports.
(44) https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/1/MjI1MyMx/rata-rata-upah-gaji-bersih-sebulan--rupiah--buruh-karyawan-pegawai-menurut-
provinsi-dan-lapangan-pekerjaan-utama-di-17-sektor--2024.html.
(45) Tarif Adjustment, https://web.pln.co.id/pelanggan/tarif-tenaga-listrik/tariff-adjustment#:~:text=Tahun%202024.%20Januari%20%E2%
80%93%20Maret:%20April.
(46) Keputusan Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Nomor 91.K/MG.01/MEM.M/2023, https://jdih.esdm.go.id/dokumen/view?
id=2380.
(47) See footnote 43.
(48) See footnote 44.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 13/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
Commodity
Unit of
Factor of Production Code in Undistorted value (CNY) Source of information
measurement
Indonesia
Energy
Electricity N/A 0,66 kWh Perusahaan Listrik
Negara(49)
Gas N/A 1,62 m3 Ministry of Energy and
Mineral Resources(50)
(87) The Hebei Jiheng Group and Puyang Cleanway submitted that the import price of urea in Indonesia was neither
representative nor reasonable, because it varied significantly and approximately 88 % of Indonesia’s total urea
imports originated from the PRC distorting domestic prices. In addition, the Hebei Jiheng Group argued that the
Indonesian import price of urea was distorted due to government subsidies and export controls.
(88) The Commission rejected the argument of the Hebei Jiheng Group, because it calculated the Indonesian import price
of urea based on the weighted average of different countries of origin. Weighting by volume dampened the eventual
effect of the variations in the price that the Hebei Jiheng Group claimed as distorting. Contrary to the claim of the
Hebei Jiheng Group, the Commission excluded imports from the PRC when calculating the undistorted import price
in Indonesia. The indirect effect of PRC imports on the price of Indonesian urea-based fertilisers was negligible, since
the domestic market was dominated by Indonesian production, mainly by P.T. Pupuk Indonesia(51). The Commission
found that less than 1 % of the total Indonesian fertiliser market was subsidised(52), hence the amount of subsidised
urea was too insignificant to distort prices in the domestic market. Contrary to the claim of the Hebei Jiheng Group
that export controls distorted the Indonesian urea market, the Commission found that export restrictions in
Indonesia were only applicable to subsidised fertilisers, including urea.
(89) The Commission rejected the argument of Puyang Cleanway, because the company did not use urea for the
manufacture of TCCA.
(90) Puyang Cleanway argued that the benchmark price for cyanuric acid was neither reasonable nor representative,
because the import price in India, used as the benchmark, covered a significant amount of chlorinated isocyanurates,
including TCCA, the product under review. Puyang Cleanway proposed constructing the benchmark price for
cyanuric acid based on the verified consumption ratio of urea by the Hebei Jiheng group, that produced it.
(91) The Commission accepted this claim. Hence, the benchmark for cyanuric acid was constructed on the basis of the
verified consumption ratio of Jiheng to which the benchmarks reported in Table 1 were applied. The Commission
then added the SG&A costs and profit of Pinto Deli to calculate an undistorted price. Considering that Pindo Deli is
involved in the production of TCCA and other chemical products belonging to the same NACE Code (20.1) as urea,
such as caustic soda, chlorine and ammonium sulphate, the SG&A costs and profit of this company were considered
reasonable.
(92) Puyang Cleanway argued that the benchmark price for chlorine was neither reasonable nor representative, because,
due to its hazardous chemical nature, Indonesia instituted regulatory and import controls that ‘may have resulted in
disproportionately high import costs and significant market price distortions’. Puyang Cleanway proposed to
construct the benchmark price for chlorine based on the verified consumption ratio used by Jiheng, that produced it.
(49) See footnote 45.
(50) See footnote 46.
(51) https://www.pupuk-indonesia.com/media-info/103/detail.
(52) https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/fertilizers-market-indonesia.
14/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(93) The Commission rejected the argument, because it found that stringent regulation and control of the sale of chlorine
and its derivatives was not specific to Indonesia, but a general feature of the market(53). Regulatory compliance is
already a built-in element of the international and domestic pricing of chlorine.
3.2.2.9. Raw materials used in the production process
(94) Jiheng is an integrated manufacturer producing the main input materials of TCCA (cyanuric acid, chlorine and caustic
soda) from urea and industrial raw salt. Other exporting manufacturers purchase cyanuric acid, chlorine and caustic
soda, in order to manufacture TCCA.
(95) In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials, as delivered at the gate of a representative country
producer, the Commission used as a basis the weighted average 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 countries which are not members of the WTO, listed in Annex 1 to Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European
Parliament and the Council(54). The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative
country as it concluded in recital (63) that 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
was no evidence showing that the same distortions did not equally affect 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.
(96) As explained in recital (90) and (91), the Commission constructed the benchmark for cyanuric acid based on the
consumption ratios of Jiheng, to which the benchmarks reported in Table 1 were applied.
(97) For several factors of production, the actual costs incurred by the cooperating exporting producers represented a
negligible share of total raw material costs in the review investigation period. As the value used for these had no
appreciable impact on the dumping margin calculations, regardless of the source used, the Commission decided to
include those costs into consumables as explained in the recital (85).
(98) The Commission expressed the transport cost incurred by the cooperating exporting producers for the supply of raw
materials as a percentage of the actual cost of such raw materials and then applied the same percentage to the
undistorted cost of the same raw materials in order to obtain the undistorted transport cost. The Commission
considered that, in the context of this investigation, the ratio between the exporting producer’s raw material and the
reported transport costs could be reasonably used as an indication to estimate the undistorted transport costs of raw
materials when delivered to the company’s factory.
3.2.2.10. Labour
(99) The Badan Pusat Statistik (the Central Agency of Statistics) publishes information on wages in different economic
sectors in Indonesia. The Commission used an average of the wages in the manufacturing sector for the month of
February 2023 and February 2024, the only available data, in the province of West Java, where Pindo Deli was
located. The amount of withholding tax, health and pension contribution was added to the hourly wage to
approximate the total labour cost disbursed by the employer(55).
(53) See the Chlorine Substance Info Card by the European Chemicals Agency for an example of EU regulatory measures. https://www.echa.
europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.029.053.
(54) Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from
certain third countries (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/755/oj). Article 2(7) of the basic
Regulation considers that domestic prices in those countries cannot be used for the purpose of determining normal value.
(55) See footnote 44.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 15/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
3.2.2.11. Electricity
(100)The price of electricity for industrial users in Indonesia is published by the National Electricity Company (Perusahaan
Listrik Negara, ‘PLN’) on its website(56). The Commission used the electricity price statistics published by the PLN,
namely industrial electricity prices in kWh for users consuming in the range between 200 and 6 600 kVA in the
review investigation period.
3.2.2.12. Natural gas
(101)The price of natural gas for industrial users in Indonesia is published by the Ministry of Energy and Naturtal
Resources in a Ministerial Decision. The Commission used the price of gas for industrial users in Indonesia as
published by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources in its Ministerial Decision 91.K/MG.01/MEM.M/2023.
The Commission used industrial gas prices for chemical companies in West Java, where Pindo Deli is located, per m3,
covering the review investigation period.
3.2.2.13. Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A costs and profits
(102)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.
(103)The Commission used the data reported in the financial statements of Pindo Deli as the basis for the establishment of
the SG&A and profit percentages to construct normal value, see recitals (70) to (80).
(104)The manufacturing overheads incurred by the cooperating exporting producers were expressed as a share of the costs
of manufacturing actually incurred by the exporting producers. This percentage was applied to the undistorted costs
of manufacturing.
3.2.2.14. Calculation of the normal value
(105)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.
(106)First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. The Commission applied the undistorted unit
costs to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producers.
These consumption ratios provided by Jiheng, Bai Kang and Puyang Cleanway were verified. The Commission
multiplied the consumption ratios by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country,
Indonesia, as described in Section 3.2.2.7.
(107)Once the undistorted manufacturing cost was established, the Commission added the manufacturing overheads,
SG&A and profit, as set out in recitals (102) to (104). SG&A and profit were determined based on the financial
statements of Pindo Deli for the RIP as reported in the company’s audited accounts(57) (see recital (103)). The
Commission added the following items to the undistorted costs of manufacturing:
— SG&A and other costs, accounting for 13,99 % of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) of Pindo Deli, and
— Profit as achieved by Pindo Deli, amounting to 22,29 % of the COGS, was applied to the total undistorted costs
of manufacturing of the cooperating exporting producers.
(108)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.
(56) See footnote 45.
(57) See footnote 41.
16/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
3.2.3. Export price
(109)Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd. (‘Jiheng’) and Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. Ltd (‘Puyang Cleanway’) exported to the
Union directly to independent customers. Hebei Ji Heng Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (‘Bai Kang’) exported to
the Union through Jiheng, acting as a related trader for all its exports of the product under review to the Union.
(110)For Jiheng and Puyang Cleanway, exporting the product under review directly to independent customers in the
Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to
the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
3.2.4. Comparison
(111)Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value
and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices
and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export
price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where
appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level;
and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price
comparability.
3.2.4.1. Adjustments made to the normal value
(112)The normal value was established at the ex-works level of trade by using costs of production together with amounts
for SG&A and for profit, which were considered to be reasonable for that level of trade. Therefore, no adjustments
were necessary to net the normal value back to the ex-works level.
3.2.4.2. Adjustments made to the export price
(113)In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of costs
related to transportation, insurance, handling and loading, commissions, credit costs and bank charges.
(114)An adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) was performed for all sales of products manufactured by Bai Kang exported to
the EU exclusively through Jiheng. Based on policy documents, the invoices and the rest of the documentation of the
transactions the Commission found that Jiheng performed functions similar to those of an agent working on a
commission basis. In this context, considering that Jiheng was remunerated for its services by a mark-up, its SG&A
costs and a notional profit of 5 % were used to construct the commission for the purpose of the adjustment. The
Commission considered that a 5 % profit was a reasonable estimate based on the margin of unrelated importers used
in similar cases. Jiheng performed the same functions regarding the domestic sales of Bai Kang, the latter having
direct, albeit very limited, export sales outside the EU.
3.2.5. Dumping margins
(115)For the sampled exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of
the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned to
calculate the dumping margin, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.
(116)A single dumping margin was calculated for the Hebei Jiheng Group, comprising of exporting producers Jiheng and
Bai Kang.
(117)The level of cooperation in this case was low because the exports of the cooperating exporting producers constituted
only 72 % of exports to the Union from the PRC during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission
considered setting the country-wide dumping margin applicable to all other non-cooperating exporting producers at
the level of the dumping margin of the product type most exported to the EU by the cooperating exporting
producers, namely 201,3 %.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 17/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(118)In conclusion, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, are as follows:
Company Definitive Dumping Margin (%)
Hebei Jiheng Group (Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. Ltd.
164,2
and Hebei Ji Heng Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd)
Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. Ltd. 165,5
All other companies 201,3
3.2.6. Lasting nature of changed circumstances
(119)In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission analysed whether the change in
circumstances with regard to dumping could reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature.
(120)The Commission observed that the volume of TCCA exports from the PRC to the EU increased from 21 800 tons
during the original investigation period(58), 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, to 32 000 tons in the RIP and thus
increased by around 47 %.
(121)The Commission further noted that the data in each and every expiry review conducted since the imposition of the
original measures has shown a significant increase in capacity and spare capacity in the PRC(59). Based on the
conclusions of the second expiry review, the production capacity of the Chinese TCCA industry was estimated at
278 000 tons with 130 000 tons spare capacity(60), whereas the conclusions of the third expiry review point to a
Chinese production capacity estimated at 755 000 tons, with a spare capacity of 510 000 tons(61).
(122)In light of the macro data that pointed to a lasting increase in the production capacity of the PRC industry, the
evolution of the capacity of the cooperating exporting producers was investigated and verified. Since 2005, Puyang
Cleanway added production capacity twice, investing [40-50] million RMB, more than doubling its final output of
TCCA from approximately 30 000 to approximately 70 000 tons. In the same period, Jiheng tripled its production
capacity from 10 000 to 30 000 tons through a major investment, and created the related exporting producer, Bai
Kang. This evolution confirmed the trends shown by the macroeconomic data, as explained in the previous recital.
(123)The Commission also compared the evolution of the number of known TCCA producers in the PRC since the
imposition of the original measures. The sampling form was sent to 12 known producers in 2005(62), while in the
last expiry review the Commission contacted 73 potential exporting producers. This very strong increase in the
number of TCCA producers in China since 2005 was corroborated by the United States International Trade
Commission in its third review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain(63).
(58) Recital 109, Commission Regulation (EC) No 538/2005 of 7 April 2005 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
trichloroisocyanuric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America (OJ L 89, 8.4.2005, p. 4, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/538/oj).
(59) Recital 34-35 see footnote 4, recital 50 see footnote 9, recital 146 see footnote 12, Council Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 1389/2011.
(60) Recital 50, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2230.
(61) Recital 146, see footnote 12, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757.
(62) Recital 101, See footnote 58.
(63) pg. IV-15, Investigation Nos 731-TA-1082-1083 (Third Review), https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub5391.pdf.
18/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(124)In addition, the Commission determined in the third expiry review that the TCCA industry was subject in the PRC,
both at national(64)and regional(65)level, to policies guiding the functioning of the sector that aim at the increase of
production capacity. The branch of the chemical industry producing certain input materials for the production of
TCCA, according to the 2019 Guiding Catalogue for Industry Structural Adjustment, was restricted for foreign
participation(66). The Commission came to the conclusion that such policies and restrictions distorted the costs of
exporting producers in the PRC.
(125)In view of the above and in view of the increased imports in the RIP at very low dumped prices, the Commission
concluded that the requirement in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, i.e. the ‘existing measure is … no longer,
sufficient to counteract the dumping’ was met.
(126)Hebei Jiheng Group, Heze Huayi and Puyang Cleanway argued that the change in circumstances with regard to
dumping could not reasonably be said to be of a lasting nature, see recital (14), claiming that there was no sufficient
evidence submitted by the applicants of a change in the number of Chinese producers exporting to the EU and of the
alleged overcapacity, further arguing that an increase in imports and certain general and non-binding government
policies do not constitute sufficient evidence of a lasting change in circumstances.
(127)The Commission noted that its findings with regard to the existence of lasting circumstances relating to dumping
were not based on the request but on the results of the investigation, both at macro level and at the level of the
cooperating exporting producers which represented 72 % of total exports to the Union in the RIP. The investigation
revealed that there was a significant increase in exports, in number of exporting producers, in production capacity,
and in spare capacity, see recitals (121) to (123). Though an increase in exports or the existence of relevant
government policies, on their own, may not always constitute sufficient grounds for a finding of lasting
circumstances relating to dumping, in this case the magnitude of the increase supported its findings as set out above.
Accordingly, these arguments were rejected.
4. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
(128)Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, an anti-
dumping duty should be imposed on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC at the level of the
lesser of the injury margin on which the measures in force are based and the dumping margins found in the current
interim review.
(129)Bai Kang was related to Jiheng, which has its own individual margin since the original investigation in 2005, see
recital (27). Bai Kang was set up in 2009, starting production in 2010. Bai Kang never made itself known to the
Commission before the current investigation, hence has no individual injury margin. The injury margin of Jiheng,
resulting from the original investigation, will, therefore, be imposed on both Jiheng and Bai Kang, being the
exporting producers of the Hebei Jiheng Group, as the definitive anti-dumping duty.
(130)In the original investigation in 2005, there was no sampling since all cooperating PRC exporting producers were
investigated. The country wide injury margin for all PRC companies was based on the lowest injury margin found(67)
at provisional stage. The definitive anti-dumping duty was based on the dumping margins. In the present
investigation, however, the imposition of the country wide injury margin (60,6 %), calculated in the original
investigation as the anti-dumping duty, would have led to a situation where the duty for non-cooperating companies
would be lower than the one for the coopering exporting producers. In the original investigation, the injury margins
of Jiheng and Puyang Cleanway were higher than the country wide rate. The Commission, therefore, imposed the
higher of the two injury margins calculated in the original investigation as the country wide duty rate.
(64) Recital 75, See footnote 12.
(65) Recital 76, Idem.
(66) See footnote 64.
(67) Recital 187, Regulation (EC) No 538/2005.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 19/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(131)On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs
duty unpaid, should be as follows:
Dumping Definitive anti-dumping duty
Company Injury margin (%)
margin (%) (%)
Hebei Jiheng Group (Hebei Jiheng
Chemical Co. Ltd. and Hebei Ji Heng 164,2 62,6 62,6
Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd)
Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. Ltd. 165,5 78,9 78,9
All other companies 201,3 78,9 78,9
(132)To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the
application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with individual anti-dumping duties 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 companies’.
(133)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.
(134)Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in
volume after the 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
individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.
(135)The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of
the product under review originating in the PRC and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product
under review produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation,
including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘All other
companies’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.
(136)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. It 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.
(137)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 and that definitive anti-dumping duties be imposed on imports
of TCCA from the PRC. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to the disclosure. The
comments submitted by interested parties were duly considered, and, where appropriate, the findings have been
modified accordingly.
20/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/ojEN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
(138)In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council(68)
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 Unionon the first calendar day of each month.
(139)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,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid and preparations thereof,
also referred to under the international non-proprietary name (INN) ‘symclosene’, currently falling under CN codes
ex 2933 69 80 and ex 3808 94 20 (TARIC codes 2933 69 80 70, 3808 94 20 20) and originating in the People’s Republic
of China.
2. The rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the
product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows:
Country of origin Company Anti-dumping duty TARIC additional code
People’s Republic of Hebei Jiheng Group (Hebei Jiheng 62,6 % 89XG
China Chemical Co. Ltd. and Hebei Ji Heng
Bai Kang Chemical Industry Co.,
Ltd.)
People’s Republic of Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Co. 78,9 % A628
China Ltd.
People’s Republic of 78,9 % A999
All other companies
China
3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be
conditional upon presentation to the Member States’ customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall
appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and
function, drafted as follows: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product under review) sold for export to the
European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in
[country concerned]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.’ If no such invoice is
presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
(68) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable
to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU)
No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU
and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1046/oj).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj 21/22EN
OJ L, 5.11.2025
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 November 2025.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
22/22 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2216/oj