EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR TRADE AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
Brussels, 1 October 2025
GENERAL DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT
Subject:
AD 717 Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of hardwood
plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China
OFFICIALS IN CHARGE
DUMPING TEAM
INJURY TEAM
Head of Section:
Thomas LANGELAAR
Thomas.LANGELAAR@ec.europa.eu
Case team:
Kristina GUTTEKOVA
Kristina.GUTTEKOVA@ec.europa.eu
Jasper VAN HESPEN
Jasper.VAN-HESPEN@ec.europa.eu
Head of Section:
Xavier SERONT
Xavier.SERONT@ec.europa.eu
Case team:
Levente ALBERT
Levente.ALBERT@ec.europa.eu
Kurt GALLE
Kurt.GALLE@ec.europa.eu
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 1 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesPROCEDURE
1.1.
Initiation
(1)
On 11 October 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an
anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of hardwood plywood
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the
PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of
Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union1 (‘the Notice of Initiation’).
(2)
The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 27
August 2024 by the Greenwood Consortium (‘the complainant’). The complaint
was made on behalf of the Union industry of hardwood plywood in the sense of
Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping
and of the resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the
investigation.
1.2.
Registration
(3)
The Commission made imports of hardwood plywood subject to registration by
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/31402 of 17 December 2024
(‘the registration Regulation’).
1.3.
Provisional measures
(4)
In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 12 May 2025, the
Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details
about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove
the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the
accuracy of the calculations within three working days. No comments were
received on the accuracy of the calculations.
(5)
On 10 June 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on
imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China by
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1139 of 6 June 20253 (‘the
provisional Regulation’).
1.4.
Subsequent procedure
(6)
Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), the
China National Forest Products Industry Association (‘CNFPIA’) representing two
1
Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of hardwood plywood originating
in the People’s Republic of China (OJ C, C/2024/6048, 11.10.2024, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6048/oj .
2
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3140 of 17 December 2024 making imports of
hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L,
2024/3140, 18.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/3140/oj).
3
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1139 of 6 June 2025 imposing a provisional anti
dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L, 10.6.2025,
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1139/oj.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 2 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties3
Chinese exporting producers including the company Pizhou Jiangshan Wood
(‘Jiangshan Wood’), an ad hoc association representing seven exporting producers
(‘Certain Number of Cooperating Exporting Producers’ or ‘CEP’), an ad hoc
association of 28 Chinese exporting producers (“Association of exporting
producers’ or ‘the association’), the complainant, the user Keflico A/S (‘Keflico’),
the unrelated importer Questwood sp. z o.o (‘Questwood’), the wholesaler and
unrelated importer Ljungberg Fritzoe AB (‘Ljungberg Fritzoe’), as well as the ad
hoc association of EU unrelated importers and users, the Plywood Trade Interest
Alliance (‘PTIA’), the federation of unrelated importers, retailers and wholesalers,
European Timber Trade Federation (‘ETTF’) and the German wholesalers, retailers
and unrelated importers association Gesamtverband Deutscher Holzhandel (‘GD
Holz’) filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional
findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional
Regulation4 .
(7)
The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings
took place with the complainant, PTIA, CNFPIA the Association of exporting
producers, and Jiangshan Wood. PTIA also submitted a post-hearing brief.
Additionally, the PTIA requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer, but the
request was denied because it did not explain if and how PTIA’s rights of defence
had been affected
(8)
The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed
necessary for its final findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the
Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised
its provisional conclusions where appropriate.
1.5.
Claims on initiation
(9)
Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that its rights of defence were
breached by the confidential treatment of the complaint. PTIA argued that the
complainants had no specific product portfolios allowing the identification of
individual injury factors and that the fact that the Commission did not present the
injury data of sampled Union producers in ranges in the provisional Regulation
demonstrated that the application of confidentiality at complaint stage was
unreasonable.
(10) The PTIA’s argument that the confidential treatment of data by indexation in ranges
in the complaint breaches the rights of defence of the PTIA was rejected because
data related to production, production capacity, capacity utilization, cost of
production, sales, inventories and employment was indeed presented in ranges in
the complaint, however, it was always accompanied by the relevant index showing
their percentage change. The treatment of data in such manner struck an adequate
balance between the rights of the complainant for the confidential treatment of their
most sensitive data and the right of defence of interested parties. In addition,
requesting confidential treatment, of their sensitive data, i.e. its presentation using
ranges, is a prerogative of interested parties in the proceeding. It was requested by
the complainants at initiation and accepted by the Commission, due to the existence
of specific types of products by the complainants, i.e. their specific product
4
The Spanish Timber Trade Federation (‘AEIM’) submitted a letter supporting the PTIA position, but
they did not register as an interested party. Baukrane, a user, provided comments but did not register as
an interested party.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 3 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties4
portfolios that would have allowed the identification of company sensitive data
even when aggregated. At provisional stage, sampled Union producers did not
request such confidential treatment. In the absence of other new elements,
therefore, the Commission confirmed its findings and conclusions in recital (9) of
the provisional Regulation.
(11) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA continued to dispute the
representativeness of the complaint and requested the Commission to disclose its
calculation of standing.
(12) The Commission confirmed its findings on standing in recital (13) of the
provisional Regulation. The note on standing5 was added to the open file on the day
of the initiation of the case. It included a list of EU producers and associations
contacted by the Commission. The note did not specify the production and sales
figures of individual producers. These details, in ranges, could be found in the
individual standing replies6 .. The note disclosed in sufficient detail the
methodology used for the purpose of calculating standing pursuant to Article 5(4)
of the basic Regulation. Specifically, Union producers expressly supporting the
complaint accounted for more than 25 % of total production of the like product
produced by the Union industry. The complaint was supported by Union producers
whose collective output constituted more than 50 % of the total production of the
like product produced by that portion of the Union industry expressing either
support for or opposition to the complaint. No producer expressing opposition to
the complaint came forward during the standing exercise. For the sake of
transparency, the Commission further disclosed that the expressly supporting
Union producers accounted for approximately 25% to 30% of the total production
referred above. Accordingly, the request was rejected. The Commission noted that
PTIA did not provide any substantive evidence demonstrating the lack of standing
of the complainants.
(13) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA submitted that the Commission
disregarded critical information relating to Union interest at provisional stage by
not taking into account during its provisional assessment the PTIA submission7
rebutting the counterarguments submitted by the complainant8 following PTIA’s
comments on initiation9 . PTIA argued that it did not miss the deadline for
submission of the data in question but, as a fallback argument, it referred to WTO
case law10, arguing that information submitted after the deadline cannot be
automatically disregarded.
(14) The Commission concluded that in view of the clarification provided about the
deadline to rebut filings of other parties, the PTIA’s argument that its rebuttal of
5
t24.008384
6
See for example t24.008226 for Panguaneta
7
t25.000896
8
t25.000277
9
t24.009472, t24.010197 and t24.040502
10
Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, paragraph 77., Appellate Body Report, US – Hot
Rolled Steel, paragraphs 74 and 77; see also Case T-633/11, Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v. Council
(paragraphs 70-91)
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 4 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties5
the Greenwood Consortium’s rebuttal of interested parties’ comments met the
deadline is incorrect.
(15) In addition, the Commission did not disregard the substance of the said rebuttal.
The claims on Union interest, already submitted by the PTIA on 25 November
202411 and 3 January 202512, were considered by conducting a thorough analysis
of the interests of different classes of users. specifically referencing the opinion of
the PTIA in recitals (355) and (362) of the provisional Regulation.
(16) The argument in the submission referred to in recital (13), regarding lack of
standing and the excessive confidentiality of standing calculations already raised
by the PTIA in its submission of 25 November 202413 and 3 January 202514 was
addressed in recitals (7) to (9), (12,) and (13) of the provisional Regulation, as well
as recital (12) above. The argument regarding the conclusions of the Commission
and the Court on product scope in the birch plywood from Russia15 investigation
already raised by the PTIA submission of 25 November 202416 and 3 January
202517 was addressed in recitals (54) to (56) of the provisional Regulation. The
film-faced plywood product exclusion request already raised by the PTIA on 24
October 202418, 18 November 202419 and 3 January 202520 was addressed in
recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional Regulation. The eucalyptus hardwood
plywood product exclusion request already raised on 24 October 202421, 18
November 202422, 25 November 202423, and 3 January 202524 was addressed in
recitals (61) and (62) of the provisional Regulation. The plywood with outer layers
of 0.3 mm or less, as well as thin plywood of thicknesses less than 6 mm product
exclusion request, already raised on 24 October 202425, 18 November 202426 , 25
November 202427 and 3 January 202528, was addressed in recitals (63) and (64) of
11
t24.010502
12
t25.000176
13
See footnote 11
14
See footnote 12
15
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood
originating in Russia,
C/2021/7887, OJ L 394, 9.11.2021, pp. 7–42
ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1930/oj
16
See footnote 11
17
See footnote 12
18
t24.009472
19
t24.010197
20
See footnote 12
21
See footnote 18
22
See footnote 19
23
See footnote 11
24
See footnote 12
25
See footnote 18
26
See footnote 19
27
See footnote 11
28
See footnote 12
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 5 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties6
the provisional Regulation. The plywood with engineered veneers scope exclusion
request, already submitted on 24 October 202429, 18 November 202430, 25
November 202431 and 3 January 202532, was addressed in recitals (65) and (66) of
the provisional Regulation. The tropical species exclusion request, already
submitted on 3 January 202533, was addressed in recitals (75) and (76) of the
provisional regulation.
(17) PTIA submitted that the Commission should exercise its discretion and not collect
provisional duties because the measures could be annulled due to the irregularity
relating to the rights to defence, i.e. the neglect of opposition letters by 140
companies at provisional stage.
(18) The Commission considered that it had thoroughly analysed all PTIA claims related
to Union interest at provisional stage, see recital (15). The argument was, therefore,
rejected.
1.6.
Sampling
1.6.1. Sampling of Union producers
(19) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested an explanation for not
including UPM or Latvijas Finieris in the sample.
(20) The Commission confirmed the reasons for selecting the sample of Union
producers set out in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation.
1.6.2. Sampling of exporting producers
(21) Following provisional disclosure, the Association of exporting producers, CEP and
CNFPIA contested the Commission’s decision to abandon the sample and to apply
Article 18 of the basic Regulation and provided comments on the method to
establish the residual duty, addressed in Section 3.5.2.
(22) CEP considered that the application of facts available could only be applied to
parties which intentionally impeded the investigation, withheld necessary
information or refused to cooperate with the Commission. It further considered that
the Commission inappropriately applied Article 18 of the basic Regulation, because
the legal position of the non-sampled cooperating exporters remained unaffected
by the non-cooperation of two sampled companies in the sense that the parties did
not lose their position of a cooperating party. In its view, the position of the
cooperating non sampled companies must be distinguished from the position of
non-cooperating parties. Furthermore, since those non-sampled exporting
producers duly submitted sampling forms in which data were all reported, it argued
that the Commission could rely on such data to determine duty rate specifically to
those cooperating parties. On this basis, CEP asked the Commission to impose
different duties for Jiangshan Wood, for non-sampled cooperating producers and
29
See footnote 18
30
See footnote 19
31
See footnote 11
32
See footnote 12
33
See footnote 12
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 6 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesSave nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 7 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
finally one duty rate for those who did not participate in the investigation or failed
to make themselves known to the Commission.
(23) The association of exporting producers argued that the decision of the two
companies that were sampled but failed to cooperate (Xuzhou Shengfeng Wood
Co., Ltd and Xuzhou Hongxin Wood Co., Ltd) reflected their individual choices
and could not be imputed to other exporting producers who duly submitted
sampling forms and expressed their willingness to cooperate. It thus considered that
the Commission’s decision to abandon the sampling was a discretionary act since
no factual basis existed to designate the companies as ‘non-cooperating.’
Furthermore, the association argued that applying Article 18 of the basic
Regulation only applied to companies that refuse access to necessary information
or otherwise significantly impede the investigation, which was not the present case
– the cooperating non sampled companies submitted sampling replies, remained
available for potential selection, and did not obstruct the process.
(24) The association also argued that Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation and Article
9(4) of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement mandated the Commission to calculate
the residual duty based on the weighted average of dumping margins established
for the sampled exporters, excluding any zero or de minimis margins and margins
based on facts available. It claimed that the Commission’s assertion that having
only one sampled company justified abandoning Article 9(6) had no basis in law.
It argued that neither the basic Regulation nor the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement
provided an exception for a single sampled exporter, and that applying ‘facts
available’ to cooperating non-sampled exporters was a radical departure from
established law and practice, resulting in punitive, non-representative duties. Apart
from considering that this approach violated the basic Regulation and the WTO
Anti-dumping Agreement, it also argued that it was not fair that cooperating and
non-cooperating companies were treated identically.
(25) For the above-mentioned reasons, the association requested the Commission to
revoke the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation to all cooperating non
sampled cooperating exporting producers. It also requested the Commission to
recalculate the residual duty rate based solely on the dumping margin of the
sampled cooperating producers.
(26) The Commission disagreed with these claims for the following reasons. First, by
submitting the sampling forms, the sampled companies expressed their willingness
to cooperate with the investigation. According to Article 17 of the basic Regulation,
the Commission must, in cooperation with parties, choose a sample which was
statistically valid, on the basis of information available at the time of the selection,
or to the largest representative volume of production, sales or exports which can
reasonably be investigated within the time available. As mentioned in recital (38)
of the provisional Regulation, after one of two sampled companies failed to
cooperate, the additionally selected company also failed to cooperate three months
after the investigation was initiated, and in view of procedural deadlines related to
the anti-dumping investigation, there was no sufficient time to include a new
company in the sample. The failure to cooperate of companies that initially
committed to do so impacted the integrity of the sampling process and left the
Commission with no other choice than to abandon the sampling.
78
(27) Second, the Commission considered that a determination of a duty for the
cooperating exporting producers solely based on sampling forms could not be
envisaged, since the information provided in the sampling form was very limited
and only related to export price and export volume. It would therefore not be
possible to determine a dumping margin on this basis, also because there was no
possibility to verify this information.
(28) Finally, the Commission also disagreed that the decision to abandon the sampling
was illegal. On the contrary, both Article 6.10 of the WTO Anti-dumping
Agreement and Article 17 of the basic Regulation stipulate that a sample must be
statistically valid, or based on the largest representative volume of production, sales
or exports. Therefore, the sample must be sufficiently representative so that the
dumping margin established on that basis is representative of all the imports to the
Union. However, after two of the initially sampled producers ceased cooperating,
only one company, Jiangshan Wood, was left as cooperating party out of the
sampled parties. The Commission considered that the sample composed of only
one company representing only around 5 % of the total exports from China to the
Union was not sufficiently representative, and therefore abandoned the sampling,
but calculated an individual duty for Jiangshan Wood. The Commission thus
maintained that the decision to abandon the sampling was justified, and that the
situation of Jiangshan Wood could not be considered representative for the situation
of other exporting producers. The Commission also recalled that Article 18 does
not apply in situations where parties deliberately refuse access, but also in situations
where parties do not provide necessary information within the time limits provided
by the Commission. Therefore, it considered that applying ‘facts available’ in this
specific case was justified and in accordance with Article 17(4) of the basic
Regulation.
1.7.
Questionnaire replies and verification visits
(29) In the absence of comments regarding the questionnaire replies and verification
visits, the Commission confirmed recitals (40) to (43) of the provisional
Regulation.
(30) Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out
at the premises of the following companies:
–
Unrelated Union importers:
–
Groupe ISB, Bruz, France (‘ISB’)
–
Altripan B.V., Antwerp, Belgium (‘Altripan’).
1.8.
Investigation period and period considered
(31) As stated in Section 1.7 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping
and injury covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘the investigation
period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury
covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the investigation period (‘the
period considered’).
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 8 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties9
2.
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(32) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA repeatedly argued, including by
rebutting the claims of the complainant, that the general scope of this case was too
broad, because plywood produced of pine, poplar, beech, birch and okoumé, cannot
be grouped under a single product definition. They referred to the findings of the
Commission in the birch hardwood plywood from Russia case34 arguing that the
findings of the Commission in that proceeding called for a clear separation between
birch plywood, poplar plywood, okoumé plywood and beech plywood, i.e.
hardwood species. This separation was objective and could not be changed. The
PTIA argued that the Commission had itself explicitly stated that plywood of
different species do not share the same basic physical, technical and chemical
characteristics35 .
(33) The Commission confirmed its findings in recitals (55) and (56) of the provisional
Regulation on the possibility of defining the scope of the investigation based on
objective criteria as the general and widely used product category of hardwood
plywood. In particular, in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation, “the
Commission found that the defining factor of the product under investigation in the
present investigation was that the face veneer is made of hardwood, as opposed to
softwood, other wood products or plastic”. The Commission noted that unrelated
importers themselves, who were members of the PTIA, used the product category
hardwood plywood as opposed to softwood plywood in their sales brochures36 .
Also, European product standards differ for hardwood and softwood plywood37 .
The existence of hardwood plywood as a well-defined, separate product category
based on common basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics different
from softwood plywood was re-enforced by the customs classification of plywood
into coniferous (softwood) and non-coniferous (hardwood) categories38 .
(34) The Commission further recalled that, according to settled case-law, “in defining
the product concerned, the Commission may take account of a number of factors,
such as the physical, technical and chemical characteristics of the products, their
use, interchangeability, consumer perception, distribution channels, manufacturing
process, costs of production and quality”.39 The Commission’s investigation found
a high degree of commonality across the product types in terms of most of the
above-mentioned characteristics, including, in addition to common physical,
34
See footnote 15
35
See footnote 15, recital 26.
36
dla-branzy-meblowej/, https://www.frischeis.at/shop/platte/sperrholz-platte~c14208283
37
EN 635-2 Plywood – Classification by surface appearance – Part 2 : Hardwood, EN 635-3 Plywood –
Classification by surface appearance – Part 3: Softwood
38
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/2364 of 26 September 2023
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
on the Common Customs Tariff, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2364/oj
39
E.g., judgments of 2 October 2024, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery
and Electronic Products (CCCME) and Others v European Commission, Case T-263/22,
ECLI:EU:T:2024:663, paragraph 294; of 13 September 2010, Whirlpool Europe v Council, T-314/06,
EU:T:2010:390, paragraph 138; of 17 December 2010, EWRIA and Others v Commission, T-369/08,
EU:T:2010:549, paragraph 82
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 9 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties10
technical and chemical characteristics, their use, interchangeability, consumer
perception, distribution channels and manufacturing process.
(35) The Commission further found clear dividing lines between hardwood and
softwood. Most hardwoods have a higher density than most softwoods. Hardwood
has a slower growth rate. Softwood is less fire resistant. Hardwoods have prominent
grain different from softwood’s light grain. Hardwoods are hard and durable
compared to soft and workable softwoods, having an impact on their use. In view
of these elements, the argument put forward by the PTIA was rejected.
2.1.
Scope exclusion requests
(36) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA argued that the fact that the
Commission rejected its scope exclusion request “with one-to-two sentences” is a
sign that “information presented by the PTIA was not given due consideration by
the Commission”.
(37) The Commission recalled that, what matters is the substance rather than the length
of the rebuttal and whether the comments were rebutted in an appropriate way. The
argument was, therefore, rejected.
(38) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA argued that in the birch hardwood
plywood from Russia40 case the Commission found that plywood made of different
hardwood species do not share the same basic physical, technical and chemical
characteristics and that this finding was endorsed by the General Court in its
Vyatsky Plywood Mill v Commission41 judgement. The PTIA submitted that the
Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts and an error of law.
(39) The Commission partly addressed these claims in recital (33). In addition, the
Commission did not interpret the facts nor the law in contradiction to its previous
findings in the birch hardwood plywood from Russia case because it never
determined that birch and other types of hardwood plywood are the same. In recital
(55) of the provisional Regulation, it found that “hardwood plywood… can be
distinguished from other products by its basic physical, technical and chemical
characteristics, which also includes several subcategories (product types)”. This
finding and the statement that birch hardwood plywood can, by itself, be a
subcategory of hardwood plywood distinct from other hardwood plywood
susceptible of being the scope of an anti-dumping investigation were not
contradictory. The argument was, therefore, rejected.
2.1.1. Eucalyptus plywood
(40) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA, the ETTF and GD Holz42 submitted
that eucalyptus plywood should be excluded from the scope of the investigation,
because the Union industry was not able to replace the eucalyptus plywood from
China as there was not enough production and not enough raw material, namely
eucalyptus logs, available in the Union. Plantations could not be extended as there
40
See footnote 34.
41
GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), 11 September 2024, Case T-32/22, paragraph 50.
42
AEIM also submitted an exclusion claim regarding eucalyptus plywood but it did not register as an
interested party.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 10 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties11
were bans in Spain and Portugal to increasing their size. PTIA noted that only three
union producers offer eucalyptus-based products. PTIA also submitted that
eucalyptus grown in Europe is not suitable for plywood production. Keflico added
that eucalyptus plywood production in the Union was almost entirely of high-grade
plywood, lower grades were not produced.
(41) The Commission confirmed its findings regarding the exclusion request of
eucalyptus plywood from the scope of the investigation in recital (62) of the
provisional Regulation on the grounds that, as recognized by PTIA itself, at least
three Union producers offer products where eucalyptus is used for the outer veneer.
The Commission also noted that the claims relating to the lack of production and
raw materials were not supported by evidence in terms of shortage of supply. The
PTIA submitted that Union eucalyptus production is mainly based on imported raw
material and the Commission found evidence that Chinese production is also using
imported veneers, as explained in recital (174), undermining the claim about the
lack of availability of raw material in the Union, as opposed to the PRC. In addition,
Keflico, in its submission confirmed the interchangeability of eucalyptus and birch
plywood43 in the packaging industry, which contradicted the claim that hardwood
plywood produced in the Union occupies a different market segment than imported
Chinese eucalyptus plywood. The claim was, therefore, rejected.
(42) Furthermore, the Commission considered that for the definition of the product
concerned, i.e. the exclusion of hardwood made from certain species, for example,
eucalyptus, the ability of the Union industry to replace in its entirety the eucalyptus
plywood imported from China was not a relevant criterion. The argument was,
however, considered relevant in the assessment of the Union interest. Accordingly,
the Commission addressed the issue further in recitals (173) and (174).
2.1.2. Film-faced plywood
(43) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA, ETTF, GD Holz and Questwood
claimed that Union film-faced plywood was not competing with film-faced
plywood imported from China, and especially film-faced plywood for formwork.
These interested parties argued that imported film-faced plywood is a distinct
product category, it is not produced in the Union and there are limitations regarding
its future production, it is not in direct competition with the Union like product, it
has different quality and performance and its eventual disappearance from the
Union market due to anti-dumping measures would have a detrimental impact on
housing policy.
(44) The claim was rejected, because despite being a well-defined product category,
formwork film-faced plywood was an integral part of the hardwood plywood
product type covered by the investigation. It was composed of similar raw material
(veneers, glue and an additional layer of plastic on the face veneer), produced by
the same exporting producers and imported by the same importers as other
hardwood plywood panels. The Commission upheld its findings in recital (60) of
the provisional Regulation concerning the lack of difference in the basic physical,
technical and chemical characteristics of Chinese and EU produced formwork film-
43
. “The customers have experienced a price increase since the Russian/ Belarusian plywood was
banned. The Chinese Eucalyptus plywood actually helped the packaging industry to survive. Not by offering
a cheaper solution, but simply as an alternative to the illegal imports of Russian birch (but that’s another
story).” t25.006761
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 11 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties12
faced plywood. Furthermore, the Commission gathered evidence showing that
imported and domestic film-faced plywood were similar both in use and durability
(i.e. the number of times they can be used for construction formwork). The Union
industry also produced beech film-faced plywood44 that, due to the characteristics
of the wood species used, was very similar to lower reusability eucalyptus film
faced plywood. In view of this overlap in usage and the fact that differences in
quality of the product alone do not warrant exclusion from the scope of the
investigation, the Commission found that film-faced plywood imported from China
and produced in the Union are in direct competition. Nevertheless, the argument
that it is not economically viable for EU producers to manufacture low quality and
inexpensive formwork film-faced plywood, as well as the impact on housing, was
considered in Section 8 on Union interest.
(45) The Commission noted that PTIA seemed to suggest in recital (84) of its
submission that Russian birch film faced plywood and Chinese imports of
eucalyptus and poplar film faced plywood were interchangeable45, as far as their
use was concerned. In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the birch
hardwood plywood from Russia case46 or this investigation, Russian birch film
faced plywood and Union industry produced film faced plywood were also
considered interchangeable.
(46) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested that the distinction between
“structural and non-structural plywood” to be taken into account in the Product
Control Number (‘PCN’), the dumping margin and the undercutting/underselling
calculations.
(47) The Commission rejected the argument as far as the inclusion in the PCN of the
alleged structural, non-structural split in hardwood plywood is concerned, because
quality (grade), application (glue type) and species related criteria in the existing
PCN structure adequately covered this distinction. During the verification of the
questionnaire reply of an unrelated importer it was found that on orders of imports
from China, the structural, non-structural distinction was not made, being
superseded by references to other qualities, already covered in the PCN. Moreover,
at this stage of the investigation, a fundamental review of the PCN would impede
completing the investigation in a timely manner. In Section 7 of the Notice of
Initiation, interested parties were provided 70 days to comment on information for
the stage of provisional findings but no such comments were submitted on the
composition of the PCN.
(48) As far as the undercutting and underselling calculation was concerned, the
Commission considered the comment by PTIA in recitals (117) and (118).
44
DYAS film – Film faced plywood | Dyas.eu
45
“Following the sanctions imposed in 2022 on the Russian Federation and Belarus and in the context
of proposed trade restrictions on Chinese imports, the European market already has faced a serious supply
gap. This is particularly critical for construction sectors reliant on disposable, low-cost formwork plywood.
… In this context, the import of film-faced plywood from countries with 6 controlled, high-yield plantations,
such as China, plays a stabilizing role, helping to preserve Europe’s forests while ensuring the continuity of
essential construction activities”, t25.006824, pg. 20.
46
Footnote 34.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 12 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties13
(49) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested the granting of an end
use exemption for film-faced plywood for non-structural applications.
(50) The Commission considered that the definition of the product by the PTIA as “film
faced plywood” did not establish a sufficient distinction to consider it a specific
product category. Furthermore, the prescribed end-use as “non-structural
applications” was not considered precise enough for warranting an end-use
exemption. The request was rejected.
(51) Following the provisional disclosure, Questwood argued that the Commission
should follow the approach adopted by the United States Department of Commerce
(‘DOC’) and the International Trade Commission (‘ITC’) that excluded certain film
faced plywood from the anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed on
Chinese plywood47 .
(52) The Commission did not consider that the results of investigations by other
jurisdictions created precedent for its own investigations. Nevertheless, it examined
the claim and found that there were fundamental differences between the two
proceedings. The public file of the original investigation by the DOC and ITC
contained evidence that the complainant and the domestic industry in the United
States agreed to exclude film-faced plywood imported from China48 on the grounds
that the complainants did not produce film faced plywood. This was not the case in
the present proceeding. The claim was rejected.
2.1.3. Thin plywood
(53) Following the provisional disclosure, Keflico submitted that eucalyptus thin
plywood should be excluded from the scope, because it was not produced in the
Union in the volumes required by the packaging industry and that thin plywood
made out of poplar, due to its physical characteristics, was not suitable for the use
of this industry.
(54) The Commission rejected the claim on the grounds that the Union industry had the
capacity to produce hardwood plywood specifically destined for both for heavy49
and light50 packaging in sufficient quantities.
3.
DUMPING
(55) Following the provisional disclosure, the Commission received comments from the
complainant and Jiangshan Wood on the dumping margin calculation.
47
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–051] Certain
Hardwood Plywood Products From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigation, Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Notices 91125.
48
“UFP argues that … PFF should be excluded from the scope of the current investigations….
petitioners state they do not oppose the modified scope exclusion language proposed by UFP...”, Certain
Hardwood Plywood Products from the People’s Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations, A-570-051, C-570-052, April 17, 2017.
49
50
https://www.garnica.one/en-uk/plywood-panels/range/efficiency/efficiency-poplar.html ,
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 13 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties14
3.1.
Procedure for the determination of the normal value under Article 2(6a) of
the basic Regulation
(56) In the absence of comments regarding the questionnaire replies and verification
visits, the Commission confirmed recitals (77) to (82) of the provisional Regulation
3.2.
Normal value
3.2.1. Existence of significant distortions
(57)
In the absence of comments regarding the questionnaire replies and verification
visits, the Commission confirmed recitals (86) to (180) of the provisional
Regulation.
3.2.2. Representative country
(58) In the absence of comments regarding the questionnaire replies and verification
visits, the Commission confirmed recitals (181) to (195) of the provisional
Regulation.
3.2.3. Sources used to establish undistorted costs
(59) Following the provisional disclosure, the complainant and Jiangshan Wood
provided comments on sources used to establish the undistorted costs. The
comments are addressed below in Section 3.2.4.
3.2.4. Factors of production
(60) Following the provisional disclosure, Jiangshan Wood submitted that the values of
factors of production mentioned in Table 1 of the provisional Regulation did not
correspond to values in the calculation files and in recital (210) of the provisional
Regulation.
(61) The Commission clarified that the values in Table 1 and recital (210) contained a
clerical error related to a percentage of import tax that was added to each
benchmark. However, the correct values were disclosed to all parties in the annexes
containing the benchmarks. These correct values were applied in the dumping
calculations.
(62) Considering these comments, the Commission confirmed that the following factors
of production and their sources have been used to determine the normal value in
accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:
Table 1
Factors of production of product under investigation
Factor of
Production
HS Code
Source
Undistorted
value
Unit of
measurement
Raw materials
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 14 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties15
Poplar log
4403 97
Global Trade Atlas
(‘GTA’) 51
980,49 CNY
m³
Eucalyptus
veneer
4408 90
GTA
4 073,14 CNY
m³
Laminates
paper
4811 49
GTA
4,26 CNY
m²
Flour
1101 00 15
GTA
5,31 CNY
kg
Consumables
Labour
n/a
National statistics
43,76 CNY
hour
Energy
Electricity
n/a
Turkish Energy
Market Regulatory
Authority
0,77 CNY
kWh
3.2.4.1. Raw materials
(63) The complainant and Jiangshan Wood provided comments on benchmarks for
poplar logs, eucalyptus veneer and wheat flour.
Poplar logs
(64) With regard to poplar logs, Jiangshan Wood considered that GTA export data from
France led to much higher prices than when using values of Eurostat, and it
considered that this may have been because the statistical data used by the
Commission mixed both import and export data. It argued that since Eurostat data
only contained data as reported directly by the French customs authorities, it was
more reliable than the third-party source data extracted from S&P Global. It further
submitted the extraction from Eurostat based on which the unit price resulted in
96,56 EUR/m³ or 754,66 CNY/m³. Jiangshan Wood additionally submitted that
there were no tariffs on imports of French-origin poplar logs to countries to which
France exported the poplar logs, and that therefore, it was not justified to add 4,1%
of import duty.
(65) The complainant submitted that Jiangshan Wood misinterpreted the data, since the
data used by the Commission was not based on the export value from France to
third countries, but on the import value in third countries of French-origin poplar
logs, which it considered was the correct method. The complainant thus argued that
the data should not be modified.
(66) The Commission clarified that, as mentioned by the complainant, the benchmark
for poplar logs was not based on export values of poplar logs from France, but
indeed on French-origin imports of poplar log into all countries in the world. The
51
http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/default.cfm.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 15 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesSave nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 16 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
statistical data was based on the GTA database which the Commission considered
as reliable, and which has been used by the Commission for this purpose in many
other investigations. Furthermore, the Commission recalled that GTA represented
a comprehensive database that contained not only on Eurostat, but also UN
Comtrade data and numerous other statistical sources. The Commission thus
considered that the benchmark established on this basis was sufficiently accurate.
The Commission further clarified that the import duty applied to poplar logs was
not determined based on exports from France, but on average import duties on
poplar logs levied by the biggest importing countries, as mentioned in recital (218)
of the provisional Regulation. The claim was thus rejected.
Eucalyptus veneer
(67) As mentioned in recitals (206) to (210) of the provisional Regulation, in the absence
of another suitable benchmark, the benchmark price for eucalyptus veneer was
based on an average export price in the GTA database under HS code 4408 90,
which includes eucalyptus veneer as well as other types of veneer. The benchmark
price established, and disclosed to parties, on this basis amounted to 4073,134
CNY/m³ or 521,22 EUR/per m³ which the Commission considered to be accurate
and in line with the market price for the type of veneer.
(68) Following the provisional disclosure, Jiangshan Wood questioned why many
countries including the biggest producers of eucalyptus veneer such as Uruguay,
Paraguay, Brazil or Chile were not considered by the Commission. It pointed out
that to establish the benchmark, the Commission considered data of Poland,
Sweden, and Latvia, which were not the main exporters of the eucalyptus veneer,
and which sourced in countries that did not produce veneer, such as Ukraine. In
addition, it also raised that the Commission included in its calculation of the
benchmark countries that exported minor quantities. Therefore, Jiangshan Wood
expressed concerns about the reliability of the database used by the Commission.
(69) Jiangshan Wood further submitted that the Commission could use UN Comtrade
data which gathered data of all exporting countries including large exporters of
eucalyptus. It submitted that the unit price to be used as the benchmark on this basis
was 3 238 CNY/m³ or 414 EUR/m³. Jiangshan Wood thus requested the
Commission to use this value as the benchmark, or alternatively, to use the value
of 443 EUR/m³ mentioned in recital (210) of the provisional Regulation. It also
mentioned that if the Commission decided to use the benchmark used at the
provisional stage, it was requested to disclose the countries considered as the
biggest exporting countries and explain why the main countries producing
eucalyptus veneer were not taken into account.
(70) The Commission first reiterated that the value of 443 EUR/m³, mentioned in recital
(210) of the provisional Regulation, concerned a clerical mistake that did not have
a factual basis. The Commission further reiterated that, as explained in recital (210)
of the provisional Regulation, the export statistics under HS code 4408 90
contained veneers of different wood species and thus of different prices. The price
ranges differed considerably for very thin veneers compared to veneers in the range
of 0,3 – 0,6 mm which, being the most common thickness used to produce plywood,
and between veneers of different qualities. For instance, for eucalyptus veneer only,
the price could vary considerably if the veneer was to be used for the core of the
plywood or for a face. The HS code was thus not only a basket code that contained
1617
more types of veneers than eucalyptus veneers used to produce plywood but also
included eucalyptus veneer of different types and qualities. Not all the veneers
could be used for the production of plywood specifically.
(71) Therefore, the Commission took into consideration only the imports from countries
for which the average import prices were in the range starting from 350 EUR/m³
for low quality eucalyptus veneer to 720 EUR/m³ for high quality eucalyptus
veneer. This range was based on invoices submitted as evidence by the complainant
for eucalyptus veneer of different prices and qualities. Therefore, the range
corresponded to prices that can be considered to be paid either for eucalyptus
veneer that can be used in the production of hardwood plywood. Countries with
average import prices outside this range were therefore not considered.
(72) In the absence of a specific HS code for eucalyptus veneer, the Commission thus
considered that the average price established on this basis was reasonable and
reflected in an accurate way the price to be paid for this factor of production. The
Commission noted additionally that the benchmark submitted by Jiangshan Wood
based on the UN Comtrade data of 3 238 CNY/m³ or 414 EUR/m³ was within the
price range used by the Commission of 350 EUR/m3 to 720 EUR/m3 and that it
was largely in line with the benchmark of 4073,14 CNY/m3 or 521,22 EUR used
by the Commission. The Commission thus rejected the claim that the statistics used
by the Commission may not have been reliable and it maintained that the
benchmark established as explained above was reasonable and accurate.
Flour
(73) Following provisional disclosure, Jiangshan Wood resubmitted that the Turkish
flour market and thus the flour prices were overall distorted and inflated because
of the various measures adopted by the Turkish Grain Office affecting the
import/export of flour of wheat. It argued that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation
provided for establishing costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices
or benchmark, and the Commission as well assessed an existence of market
distortions when establishing the benchmark. In its view, an undistorted benchmark
could be the average import price of flour into the other upper middle-income
countries, which is 3,9 CNY/kg without import tariffs or 4,45 CNY/kg with
applicable customs tariffs.
(74) The complainant submitted that the comments of Jiangshan Wood related to wheat
grain but not to wheat flour. It also argued that the licencing and inspection
requirement were standard requirements for health safety reasons requires for all
agricultural products.
(75) The Commission confirmed that the said restrictions indeed related to imports of
flour grains and not to the wheat flour itself. As mentioned in recital (213) of the
provisional Regulation, the quantity of flour imported into Türkiye was significant
and there was a demand for flour at prices that included the duties. Therefore, it
maintained that the prices were representative of a market price.
3.2.4.2. Labour
(76)
In the absence of comments regarding labour, the Commission confirmed recital
(223) of the provisional Regulation.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 17 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties18
3.2.4.3. Electricity
(77)
In the absence of comments regarding electricity, the Commission confirmed
recital (224) of the provisional Regulation.
3.2.4.4. Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A, profits and depreciation
(78) As explained in in recital (228) of the provisional Regulation, when establishing
the benchmarks for SG&A and profit, the Commission used the Turkish
government’s data of the average operating expenses and operating profit of the
companies published by the Central Bank of Türkiye on the financial results of the
3 121 companies with activities in the sector of wood products, cork, straw and
plaiting materials manufacturing (NACE – C-162).
(79) Following provisional disclosure, the complainant submitted that the data was not
appropriate, since it covered a too broad sector and that it did not reflect the real
operating expenses and profitability of plywood industry in Türkiye. It argued that
the NACE code C162 included production of other wood-based products such as
carpentry and joinery, wood flooring, wood containers, plaiting materials etc., and
that the relevant subcategory C162-1 Manufacture of veneer sheet sand wood
based panels was not available. It argued that the plywood segment within the
category only represented 2%, and that it was dominated by the wood-based panels
industry such as producers of particleboards and MDF. It submitted that plywood
products were the most sophisticated and premium products among all wood-based
products and that since the aggregated NACE code comprised mostly other
productions, it was not appropriate to determine the SG&A and profit of the
plywood sector. It also argued that the database included almost exclusively data
of micro or small companies, but that plywood is produced by medium sized
companies. It further submitted that more than 3000 companies that were
considered were loss making which made the use of the macroeconomic data not
applicable. The complainant further submitted that the used data related to the
period of 2022 and that thus did not reflect the situation of the companies in the IP.
(80) The complainant submitted financial data of 2024 of a company Pelit Arslan
Kontrplak Fabrikasi Anonim Sirketi (‘Pelit Arslan’), available from D&B Finance
Analytics database52. According to the financial report, SG&A expenses in 2024
were 21,6% of the costs of the good sold, and the profit before tax was 23,6 %. In
its view, these indicators were conservative since the company demonstrated even
higher level of SG&A and profit in the previous years. In its view, the proposed
level of SG&A remained largely in line with the SG&A identified by the
Commission whereas the higher profit was clearly more representative of the
plywood sector since it was a premium wood-based product compared to other
wood panels. On this basis the complainant requested the Commission to revise the
approach and to use the data of Pelit Arslan as a benchmark for SG&A and profit.
(81) Jiangshan Wood submitted that it did not object the use of the Turkish
government’s data published by the Central Bank of Türkiye, proposed by the
Commission. It submitted that the report from the data indicated that the SG&A
contained distribution expenses which should be excluded from the construction of
normal value. It therefore argued that the Commission should exclude the
52
The report can be obtained for a fee at https://www.informa.es/en.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 18 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesSave nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 19 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
distribution expenses based on a reasonable ratio, based on either data of Union
producers or based on financial information submitted by the unrelated trader
Pizhou Ouyme Import and Export Trade Co. Ltd (‘Pizhou Ouyme’) which showed
that the direct selling expenses in its total SG&A represented 62% of the total
SG&A.
(82) As a rebuttal to the arguments submitted by Jiangshan Wood, the complainant
argued that it was not clear what types of expenses were included in this category,
and that the general ‘distribution expenses’ category could also (or exclusively)
refer to costs associated with making a product or service available to the
customers, such as packaging, marketing, sales, storage and warehousing, orders
management, customer services, etc. It also argued that the financial data of the
Union producers did not include any breakdown of the SG&A expenses into
individual categories, thus, not allowing to make adjustments and that likewise, the
share of individual cost items within the ‘distribution expenses’ category of the
Chinese trader was equally not applicable nor reliable due to distortions found by
the Commission in China for this product and industry. Finally, it argued such an
adjustment was not done by the Commission in previous investigations.
(83) As a rebuttal to the complainant’s comments, Jiangshan Wood requested the
Commission to disregard the financial data of Pelit Arslan since it argued that
without having access to the data, it could not check the accuracy of the calculations
nor assess the reliability of the data for the construction of the normal value and
that this would not be rectified with a meaningful summary of the data (for example
in ranges) since the SG&A and profit must be accurate percentages. It pointed out
that the financial data submitted in the context of Article 2(6a) of the basic
Regulation to be ‘readily available”, and copy-right free. It gave example of cases
where data was rejected from being used due to the fact that it could not be placed
on the open file for copyright infringement reasons.
(84) The Commission recalled that at provisional stage, recent data of any Turkish
company was not available, and therefore, the database that was used constituted
the best available proxy to establish a reasonable SG&A and profit. Data of a
company producing the hardwood plywood, as submitted by the complainant, was
however a more reasonable basis to determine SG&A and profit, than a database
that gathers data of a much broader sector. Also, based on the detailed financial
reports of this company submitted by the complainant, the Commission could
verify that the percentages of SG&A and profit were accurately established. The
reports were directly available, against a small fee, on a public website
(https://www.informa.es/en). The Commission thus concluded that the data of Pelit
Arslan could be used to establish a reasonable SG&A and profit and, hence, were
in compliance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.
3.2.4.5. Calculation
(85) Following the provisional disclosure, Jiangshan Wood submitted that the
Commission double counted the transport costs, since when establishing the
benchmark for factors of production, the costs such as the domestic freight in the
exporting countries as well as ocean freight and insurance were included, and that
the Commission also added transport costs in the recalculated costs of
manufacturing.
1920
(86) Jiangshan Wood also argued that, should the Commission add the transport costs,
it should add the actual reported transport costs, instead of increasing the values by
the ratio of the transport costs on the actual purchase value of the input reported by
Jiangshan Wood. It argued that these costs were deemed reliable by the
Commission since the Commission as well used data of a Chinese trader Pizhou
Ouyme to establish the CIF value. It considered that the provisional Regulation did
not demonstrate that transport costs in China were significantly distorted within the
meaning of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, and thus, if the Commission
would add the transport costs on top of the cost of the benchmark, it should use the
actual transport costs.
(87) The Commission clarified that the transport costs that were added to the benchmark
price were the transport costs at CIF or FOB level, hence included costs of the
delivery to the border of a representative country. However, these costs did not
include inland freight. Since, under the methodology applied under Article 2(6a)(a)
of the basic Regulation, the normal value should reflect the undistorted price of the
raw materials in the representative country, in this case Türkiye, it should therefore
reflect the price that a producer would pay in Türkiye for a raw material delivered
at the factory gate. Therefore, the Commission added the inland transport costs of
the raw material to the benchmark value. Therefore, the transport costs were not
double counted; the benchmark comprised transport costs to the border of the
representative country and the transport costs added when constructing the normal
value were inland costs.
(88) The Commission further clarified that the transport cost, as reported by Jiangshan
wood, were used as the percentage of the transport costs of the actual purchase
value of the input reported by Jiangshan Wood, as explained in recital (222) of the
provisional Regulation. The investigation already established the existence of
significant distortions in China and their systemic nature. The Commission
considered that distortions equally affected transport costs. Accordingly, 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. The Commission thus
rejected the claim that it should use the actual transport costs.
(89) In the absence of other comments regarding calculation issues, the Commission
confirmed recital (224) of the provisional Regulation.
3.3.
Export price
(90) In the absence of other comments regarding the calculation of the export price, the
Commission confirmed recital (235) of the provisional Regulation.
3.4.
Comparison
(91) As explained in recitals (236) to (237) of the provisional Regulation, the CIF value
established to be used as a denominator for the dumping calculations was based on
the ex-works price of Jiangshan Wood to which the Commission added sea freight
costs, as well as the SG&A and profit of an unrelated trader. As explained in the
provisional Regulation (recital (237)), to establish these adjustments to arrive from
the ex-works price to the CIF value, the Commission relied on publicly available
information (Drewry World Container Index) in case of sea freight, and on the
financial report of one of the unrelated traders provided by Jiangshan Wood.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 20 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties21
(92) The Commission invited the unrelated traders of Jiangshan Wood to cooperate to
provide their actual data on sea freight costs, the SG&A and profit. Data was
provided by the following five traders: Jiangsu Sainty Land-up Pro-trading Co.,
Ltd, Lianyungang Yuantai International Co., Ltd., Pizhou Ouyme Import & Export
Trade Co., Ltd., Sumec International Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Fanhong
Commerce Co., Ltd. The analysis of the information provided by the traders
corresponded to the costs established by the Commission at provisional stage. The
Commission therefore confirmed the CIF values, as determined in the provisional
disclosure.
(93) Following the provisional disclosure, Jianghan Wood submitted that a more
appropriate benchmark to establish the CIF values would be to calculate a markup
amount for the traders’ involvement based on their data. It argued that this was
because it was not clear under which incoterms the traders and more specifically
Pizhou Oyeme sold the product concerned to the Union.
(94) The Commission clarified that the costs of the traders involved between the ex
works price of Jianghan Wood were established based on information by the traders
covering almost 90% of the sales volume and value of Jiangshan Wood to the
Union, and that it took into account the different incoterms. This methodology was
thus considered accurate and reliable. The claim was thus rejected.
(95) In the absence of other comments, the Commission confirmed recitals (236) to
(237) of the provisional Regulation.
3.5.
Dumping margins
3.5.1. Individual dumping margin for Jiangshan Wood
(96) Following claims from interested parties as detailed in Section 3, the Commission
revised the individual dumping margin for Jiangshan Wood. The definitive
dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF)
Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows:
Company
Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)
Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd
43,2
3.5.2. Dumping margin for all other imports
3.5.2.1. Method to calculate the dumping margin for all other imports
(97) As mentioned in Section 1.7, the association of exporting producers, CEP and
CNFPIA contested the decision to abandon the sampling and the fact that the
Commission established consequently only one margin for all imports, with the
exception of Jiangshan Wood that received an individual dumping margin. These
parties requested the Commission to recalculate the residual duty rate based solely
on the dumping margin of Jiangshan Wood. CNFPIA submitted in particular that
it was unfair and unreasonable that non-sampled exporting producers, which timely
filed sampling forms have the same duty as non-cooperating companies. In its view,
the non-sampled exporting producers, which timely filed sampling forms should
have got the same anti-dumping duty of Jiangshan Wood. CNFPIA also requested
the Commission to disclose the list of non-sampled exporting producers, which
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 21 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesSave nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 22 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
timely filed sampling forms, and to disclose the detailed calculation of duty for “All
other imports” so that it could comment.
(98) The Commission recalled that the objective of not establishing the residual duty
based on the dumping margin of the only cooperating party of the initially sampled
parties was not to penalize the cooperating non-sampled companies, but rather to
establish a duty based on the best available data, given the lack of cooperation from
the initially sampled companies. The Commission disagreed that the duty rate for
the non-sampled cooperating producers should have been established based on duty
rate for Jiangshan Wood. Establishing the dumping margin for all the imports solely
on data of one company may not have resulted in a representative dumping margin,
since in this specific case, Jiangshan Wood’s exports to the Union only amounted
to some 5% of all the exports to the Union. This is different from a situation where
dumping margin for cooperating non sampled companies is based on a sample
which is sufficiently representative. In this case the sampling was abandoned, and
hence no sampled average duty for cooperating non-sampled companies could be
calculated.
(99) The Commission further recalled that, as regards the export price, the residual duty
was already based on the data of all exporting producers as export prices were based
on Eurostat statistics. As regards the normal value, data of Jiangshan was used.
Therefore, the Commission considered this as a reasonable and accurate method to
calculate the residual duty rate and thus rejected the claim.
(100) With regard the request to disclose the list of non-sampled cooperating companies,
the Commission recalled that sampling replies of the companies could be consulted
in the open file. The list of the companies would only be part of a Regulation in
case these companies obtain an individual TARIC code and duty rate, which was
not the case. The Commission thus disagreed that it should do a specific disclosure
of a list of non-sampled cooperating producers.
(101) With regard to the calculations, the Commission considered these could not be
disclosed, since the calculations were based on the normal value of Jiangshan
Wood. Disclosure would therefore reveal confidential data of the company. The
Commission however stressed that the method as to how the duty level for all other
imports was established was sufficiently detailed in Section 3.5 of the provisional
Regulation, which allowed the parties to make comments. The Commission thus
rejected the claim that a detailed calculation of duty for all other imports should
have been disclosed.
3.5.2.2. Comments on the level of the dumping margin and export price determination
(102) The complainant claimed that both the dumping margin of Jiangshan Wood, as well
as for the other producers in China, was very low, considering the market
distortions found in China in the plywood industry, and the very low pricing levels
widely available for the Chinese imports in the Union. It argued that the dumping
margins were also much lower compared to the injury elimination levels found by
the Commission. Therefore, the levels of the provisional duties were not sufficient
to level the playing field and allow the Union producers to recover from the material
injury. The complainant also argued that, in view of the very low level of
cooperation by the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission should apply the
wide margin of discretion it enjoys in trade defence cases and apply the highest
possible anti-dumping duty for all other non-cooperating Chinese producers.
2223
(103) The complainant also argued that, based on the information in the open file (such
as sampling form or notes on factors of production), Jiangshan Wood exports
predominantly poplar, which was the cheapest hardwood plywood by far compared
to other types of plywood. It pointed out to the fact that the export price was mainly
determined based on all imports to the Union including cheaper poplar plywood
but also more expensive, eucalyptus and birch plywood. The complainant
submitted the price differences based on Eurostat data demonstrating the price
difference. It therefore requested the Commission to change the approach by
adjusting the export price and by using solely the export price for poplar plywood,
since it considered that this method would better reflect the dumping behaviour of
the non-cooperating exporters.
(104) Contrary to the complainant’s allegations, Jiangshan Wood exported to the Union
not only poplar but also other more expensive types of plywood such as eucalyptus
and birch. It was thus not justified to base the export price solely on the exports of
poplar plywood, since other more expensive types of plywood represented a
sufficient share within the exports of Jiangshan Wood. These shares of poplar wood
and other more expensive types exported by Jiangshan Wood were comparable to
shares in the overall imports of hardwood plywood into the Union from the PRC,
which confirmed that the use of Eurostat statistics to establish the export price in
this case was reasonable and accurate. The Commission thus maintained that the
method it used to establish the dumping margin for all other imports did not lead to
any asymmetry and was accurate and reasonable. The Commission thus rejected
the claim.
3.5.2.3. Definitive dumping margin for all other imports
(105) Following the revision of the normal value of Jiangshan Wood as detailed in
Section 3.2, the definitive dumping margin for all other imports, expressed as a
percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) Union frontier price, duty
unpaid, is as follows:
Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)
All other imports
86,8
4.
INJURY
(106) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA pointed out that the Commission
relied on data from a macro questionnaire by the European Panel Federation
(‘EPF’) in recital (247) of the provisional Regulation without mentioning the
sources of the data.
(107) The Commission referred the PTIA to the public version of the macro questionnaire
reply53 which itself refers to confidential information from EPF. The questionnaire
reply of the EPF was verified and the report was available in the public file54 .
53
The macro questionnaire reply is available at t24.011339 in the public file.
54
t25.00938
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 23 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties24
(108) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested the Commission to
clearly indicate which companies were included under the term “Complainant”.
(109) The Commission defined the term “Complainant” in recital (2) of the provisional
Regulation.
(110) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that the injury analysis was
flawed because it did not contain an analysis per hardwood species.
(111) The claim was rejected on the grounds that in view of the definition of the product
concerned, see recitals (45) and (46) of the provisional Regulation, a separate injury
analysis for each different species was not warranted. Furthermore, the main
species, i.e. poplar, birch and eucalyptus, were examined, both in the injury and the
dumping analysis.
4.1.
Definition of the Union industry
(112) In the absence of any comments regarding the definition of the Union industry,
recitals (246) to (247) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
4.2.
Union consumption
(113) In the absence of any comments regarding Union consumption recitals (248) to
(250) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
4.3.
Imports from the country concerned
4.3.1. Volume and market share of the imports from the country concerned
(114) Following the provisional disclosure, CEP, an ad hoc association of Chinese
producers, argued that the decline in Chinese import prices in 2023 and the IP
should have resulted in significantly increased imports. Instead, the volume of
imports from China declined in 2023 compared to 2022, the previous year, and only
increased marginally in the IP.
(115) The argument was rejected, because the volume of imports was affected by several
other factors than only prices. In 2022, such factors were the removal of Russian
and Belarusian plywood from the Union market by sanctions and the expectation
of economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic whereby orders
increased significantly. These factors pushed up the quantity of imports from China
in 2022. The effect of those factors, however, was less pronounced in the following
years, so that imports first decreased in 2023 before increasing again in the IP.
4.3.2. Prices of the imports from the country concerned and price undercutting
(116) In the absence of any comments regarding prices of imports from the country
concerned, recitals (258) to (260) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(117) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA challenged the representativity of
the undercutting and underselling calculation arguing that imported film-faced
eucalyptus plywood could not be compared with Union industry production and
should be rejected from the product scope as explained and addressed in Section
2.1.2. Should the product scope rejection be denied, PTIA requested the
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 24 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties25
Commission to ensure fair comparison by taking price difference between
structural vs non-structural characteristics in the calculations.
(118) The Commission found that the overwhelming majority of imported PRC film
faced hardwood plywood was poplar and eucalyptus, while the sampled
complaining Union producers produced film faced hardwood plywood using
mostly birch. There was a price difference in the resulting product due to the
variance in the price of the raw material used. The Commission, therefore,
performed a quality adjustment, based on the price difference between the average
purchase price paid during the IP of poplar and birch logs in the EU, in order to
meaningfully compare matching types of film faced hardwood plywood produced
by the Union industry and imported from the PRC. The result of the adjustment
was a decrease of the undercutting margin from 46,3 % to 32,3% and of the
underselling margin from 144,37 % to 93,16 % for Jiangshan Wood and a
corresponding decrease from 192,7 % to 185,9 % for all other PRC imports.
4.4.
Economic situation of the Union industry
4.4.1. General remarks
(119) In the absence of any comments regarding general remarks, recitals (264) to (268)
of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
4.4.2. Macroeconomic indicators
4.4.2.1. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation
(120) Following the provisional disclosure, CEP argued that production capacity
remained stable and that a production decline of 11 % during the period considered
was normal.
(121) The argument was rejected, as a decline of 11% in production volume of the Union
industry from 2021 to the IP, especially in view of the market gap created by the
sanctions against Russia and Belarus, was detrimental to the Union industry.
(122) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that capacity utilization of
the Union industry has been stable.
(123) The Commission rejected the claim because capacity utilization declined by 9%
from 2021 to the IP.
(124) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that it was erroneous for the
Commission to consider in recital (270) of the provisional Regulation that the
Union industry could have increased its production capacity to fill in some of the
gap in the market created by the banning of Russian and Belarusian hardwood
plywood in 2022.
(125) After the imposition of the ban on Russian and Belarusian hardwood plywood, the
Union plywood industry having a large spare production capacity had a justified
expectation that the demand for hardwood plywood could shift to its own products.
Instead, at least partly, that demand was supplied by dumped and injurious Chinese
imports. The availability of raw material for such an increase, disputed by the
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 25 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties26
PTIA, does not take into account the harvesting of reserve plantations and the trade
in logs and veneer.
(126) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA noted that a capacity utilization of
66% was realistic for the Union industry. Furthermore, CEP claimed that the
capacity utilization was already low at the beginning of the period considered, in
2021. Therefore, its subsequent decline could not be attributed to imports from
China but to a general lack of business know-how of the Union industry.
(127) The Commission rejected these arguments, these were not backed by any evidence.
4.4.2.2. Sales quantity and market share
(128) In the absence of any comments regarding sales quantity, recitals (273) to (275) of
the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
(129) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA noted that the market share of the
Union industry had increased. They argued that the explanation provided in recital
(276) of the provisional Regulation whereby the exclusion of Russian and
Belarusian hardwood plywood products from the Union market led to a decrease
in consumption was illogical as illegal Russian plywood continued to enter the
Union market as evidenced by the conclusions of the anti-circumvention
investigation of birch hardwood plywood from Kazakhstan and Türkiye55 (‘the
anti-circumvention investigation’). PTIA added that the decrease in consumption
was rather linked to a normalization of the demand following the post-Covid
economic rebound.
(130) The claim was rejected because in the anti-circumvention investigation, evidence
was found that 130 900 m³ of Russian hardwood plywood were imported through
Kazakhstan and Türkiye in July 2022 – June 2023, which was less than 10% of the
amount imported from Russia and Belarus in 2021, i.e. the last year before the
introduction of the sanctions. Hence, if there was a displacement of the imports
from Russia and Belarus to consignments from Kazakhstan and Türkiye, it was
only limited.
(131) In any case, the sales of the Union industry decreased by 12% or more than 165
000 m³ between 2021 and the investigation period, whereas imports from the PRC
increased by 16% and over 100 000 m³ in the same period. The market share of the
Union industry increased by 25% between 2021 and the investigation period but
that of the Chinese imports increased by 67% in the same period. On this basis, this
claim was rejected.
4.4.2.3. Growth
(132) In the absence of any comments regarding growth, recital (278) of the provisional
Regulation was confirmed.
55
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1287 of 13 May 2024 extending the definitive anti
dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 on imports of birch plywood
originating in Russia to imports of birch plywood consigned from Türkiye and Kazakhstan, whether
declared as originating in Türkiye and Kazakhstan or not (OJ L, 2024/1287, 14.5.2024, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1287/oj)
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 26 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for partiesSave nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 27 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
4.4.2.4. Employment and productivity
(133) Following the provisional disclosure, CEP argued that the level of employment of
the Union industry was stable and that its productivity showed a positive
development.
(134) The arguments were rejected, because the 2% decline in employment, 11% fall in
production volume and 9% decrease in productivity showed a deterioration of the
situation of the Union industry rather than signalling stability or improvement as
argued by CEP. The Commission also recalled that its injury analysis was not
simply static, only comparing end-points, but also dynamic, analyzing the trend in
between end-points, too. In the case at hand, the dynamic analysis of the
employment, production volume and productivity data confirmed the existence of
material injury.
4.4.2.5. Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping
(135) In the absence of any comments regarding the magnitude of the dumping margin
and recovery from past dumping, recitals (283) to (284) of the provisional
Regulation were confirmed.
4.4.3. Microeconomic indicators
4.4.3.1. Prices and factors affecting prices
(136) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA highlighted that the significant
increase in Union sales prices between 2021 and 2023 demonstrated that there was
no injury to the Union industry.
(137) The Commission rejected the argument because the increase in the sales price was
offset by the significant increase of production costs. The price depression by
imports lead to the loss of profitability by the Union industry, indicating material
injury. Furthermore, the Commission also considered that conclusions on the
overall situation of the Union industry should not be based on certain injury
indicators taken in isolation, but rather on an assessment of the evolution of the
whole set of injury indicators during the period considered.
4.4.3.2. Labour costs
(138) In the absence of any comments regarding labour costs, recitals (289) and (290) of
the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
4.4.3.3. Inventories
(139) Following the provisional disclosure, PTIA submitted that the stock level increase
should be considered immaterial as, when expressed as a percentage of production,
it increased only from 1,74% in 2021 to 2,43% in the IP.
(140) The Commission noted that PTIA did not dispute that there was an increase in
stocks both in relative and absolute terms, as assessed by the Commission. The 2,43
% of unsold hardwood plywood stocks in the IP, labelled “immaterial” by PTIA,
in real terms accounted for 44.504 m³ of the product under investigation, i.e. more
than the amount of birch plywood from Russia that was found to be circumvented
through Türkiye in the anti-circumvention investigation. Moreover, any increase in
27Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 28 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
stocks represents a cost for its holder that needs to be financed. The Commission
rejected the argument.
4.4.3.4. Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise
capital
(141) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA expressed concerns regarding the
representativeness of the profitability of the sampled companies. It identified
certain birch plywood producers that reported good results in the period considered.
PTIA argued that it was not able to comment on which wood species will be
affected more by the measures because the Commission had not performed an
analysis per segment.
(142) The Commission rejected the argument because the profitability of the Union
industry was assessed by examining a duly selected representative sample of Union
producers of the product under investigation. Its representativity was not disputed
by interested parties at sampling stage. Furthermore, Union producers, including
those referenced by the PTIA, did not manufacture the product under investigation
only, whereby the scope of the investigation was narrower than their published
financial results. The Commission determined in recital (55) of the provisional
Regulation that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of
plywood made from all hardwood species were the same and they formed a single
product category, thereby making an analysis per segment unnecessary. The
determination regarding basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of
hardwood plywood from different species has been challenged by the PTIA based
on the findings and the Court ruling in the Russia birch plywood case but was
rejected in recitals (55) and (56) of the provisional Regulation and recital (33),
above. On this basis, the claim was rejected.
(143) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that Union prices were not
depressed and that the profitability issues resulted from cost of production
increases. The PTIA claimed that Union industry’s sales prices increased in the IP
according to market reality leading to a loss of profitability, and that the Union
sales volume followed the general decline in consumption. PTIA argued that the
Commission erred by attributing the decline in consumption to the Russian and
Belarusian plywood ban because the anti-circumvention investigation
demonstrated that Russian birch plywood continued entering the Union market.
(144) In the absence of any new evidence, the Commission sustained its findings in recital
(285) – (288) of the provisional Regulation. The argument relating to the decline
in consumption was addressed in recital (130).
(145) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that there is no investment
benchmark demonstrating the health of an industry, the hardwood plywood
industry is not capital intensive and noted that investments between 2023 and the
IP increased by 8%.
(146) The Commission sustained its finding in recital (296) of the provisional Regulation
that investment by the Union industry decreased by 31 % during the period
considered. The existence of a benchmark and the capital intensity of the hardwood
plywood industry were irrelevant because these injury indicators were not analysed
separately but as a part of a larger analysis of material injury indicators, meaning
that even without a benchmark or an assessment of the capital intensity of the
2829
industry, the trend of the decrease in investment supported rather than negated the
existence of material injury.
4.5.
Conclusion on injury
(147) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that for reasons discussed
above, injury indicators did not support the provisional conclusion of the
Commission that the Union industry suffered injury.
(148) The Commission addressed the claims by the PTA with regard to a number of injury
indicators above, see recitals (106)to (111), (117) to (118), (122) to (126), (129)
and (130), (136) to (137), and (139) to (140). With exception of the comment on
undercutting, the claims of the PTIA were rejected. The recalculated undercutting
margins remained, however, high, see recital (118).
(149) The Commission, therefore, maintained the conclusion that the Union industry
suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.
5.
CAUSATION
5.1.
Effects of the dumped imports
(150) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA claimed that the Commission did
not properly assess the impact of the increase of the volume of imports and that
there was no significant increase of import volume of Chinese origin in relation to
consumption or production quantity in 2023 and the IP. Imports peaked in 2022
with an increase of 32% but, in 2023 and the IP, imports were only 11% and 16%
higher than in 2021, respectively. The PTIA took issue with the statement in recital
(324) of the provisional Regulation that Chinese manufacturers were “continuously
increasing their import volumes at significantly lower prices”.
(151) The Commission when assessing the volume of imports and their impact on prices
found that a significant increase in the volume of imports in 2022, was followed by
a more moderate increase in 2023 and the IP as compared to 2021, at sharply
declining prices. These trends, however, continued to point to the existence of a
causal link between imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union
industry. Import of hardwood plywood from China in relation to Union
consumption rose from 18% in 2021, to 26% in 2022, and 29% in 2023, increasing
again to 31% in the IP. In relation to Union production, the percentage of Chinese
imports was 37% in 2021 that grew to 49%, 44% and 48% in 2022, 2023 and the
IP, respectively. The argument was, therefore, rejected.
5.2.
Effects of other factors
(152) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA submitted that the more significant
increase of the production costs of the Union industry in relation to its sales price
was the result of extraordinary events like the increase in the cost of raw materials,
the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis.
(153) The Commission found that the Union industry was able to increase prices above
its production costs in 2022. However, following this increase, sales prices declined
and remained below the level of production costs. The latter were constant in 2023
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 29 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties30
and the IP. The element impacting Union industry prices showing change was the
increasing volume and decreasing price of Chinese imports. On this basis, the
Commission maintained its conclusion that Chinese imports were causing injury to
the Union industry.
(154) Following the provisional disclosure, CEP argued that the sales prices of the Union
industry were not affected by the decline in import prices because when import
prices dropped significantly in 2023, while the Union industry was able to increase
prices.
(155) As already set out in recitals (306) and (307) of the provisional Regulation, the drop
in the prices of Chinese imports prevented the Union industry from raising its prices
above its production costs. The Commission found that the claim of CEP rather
than showing a lack of causality demonstrated that in a situation of increasing
production costs and decreasing import prices, the Union industry attempted but
did not succeed raising its prices to sustainable levels, precisely because of the low
priced imports.
(156) Following the provisional disclosure, to demonstrate the alleged lack of causal link,
the PTIA referred to production cost data from the birch plywood from Russia
case56, where Paged, one of the sampled Union producers in this case was also part
of the sample.
(157) The reference was deemed irrelevant because it concerned a case with a different
investigation period and product scope.
5.3.
Export performance of the Union industry
(158) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA and CEP attributed the injury
suffered by the Union industry to the decline of its export performance.
(159) The Commission found that more than 80% of the sales of the Union industry were
made in the Union and that exports were profitable throughout the period
considered. Given the share of the export sales, their decline was not considered to
attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the
dumped Chinese imports.
5.4.
Conclusion on causation
(160) The Commission assessed the impact of all known factors, taking into account the
comments of interested parties, and concluded that those factors did not attenuate
the causal link. The Commission, therefore, confirmed the conclusions in recitals
(332) to (334) of the provisional Regulation that there was a causal link between
the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from China.
6.
LEVEL OF MEASURES
(161) In the present case, the complainant claimed the existence of raw material
distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. Thus, in
order to conduct the assessment on the appropriate level of measures, the
56
See footnote 34.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 30 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties31
Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury
suffered by the Union industry in the absence of distortions under Article 7(2a) of
the basic Regulation. Then it examined whether the dumping margin of the sampled
exporting producers would be higher than their injury margin.
6.1.
Injury margin
(162) Based on data from the Surveillance 2 database, import volumes from China during
the four weeks period before pre-disclosure were 82 % lower than the average
import volumes in the investigation period on a four-week basis. On that basis, the
Commission concluded that there had not been a substantial rise in imports subject
to the investigation during the period of pre-disclosure.
(163) The Commission, therefore, did not adjust the injury elimination level in this
regard.
(164) As described in recital (118), the Commission revised the injury margins.
Therefore, the final injury elimination level for the cooperating exporting producers
and all other companies is as follows:
Country
Company
Definitive injury margin
(%)
The People’s
Republic of
China
Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd
93,1
The People’s
Republic of
China
All other imports originating in the
PRC
185,9
6.2.
Examination of the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union
industry
(165) In recital (347) of the provisional Regulation, it was established that the margins
adequate to remove injury were higher than the dumping margins.
(166) After the revision of the injury elimination levels at definitive stage, the margins
adequate to remove injury remained higher than the dumping margins. The
Commission thus maintained that it was appropriate to determine the amount of
definitive duties in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation.
7.
CONCLUSION ON THE LEVEL OF MEASURES
(167) Following the above assessment, definitive anti-dumping duties should be set as
below in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation:
Company
Definitive injury
margin (%°
Definitive
dumping margin
(%)
Definitive duty level
(%)
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 31 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties32
Pizhou Jiangshan
Wood Co., Ltd
93,1
43,2
43,2
All other imports
originating in the
PRC
185,9
86,8
86,8
8.
UNION INTEREST
8.1.
Interest of the Union industry
(168) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA argued that it is not in the interest
of the Union industry to impose measures on Chinese film-faced plywood for
formwork, because, in view of the limitations of formwork plywood production in
the EU, it is not economically viable for the Union industry to produce it.
(169) The Commission noted that Chinese film-faced plywood can have different grades
of durability, some can be used up to ten times for formwork. The Union industry
produced high and lower durability film-faced plywood using different hardwood
species. Restoring fair pricing in this part of the film-faced plywood market is
clearly in the interest of the Union industry.
(170) As far as low-reusability film faced plywood, mainly used by construction firms
for formwork was concerned, during the verification of the questionnaire reply of
one of the sampled Union producers, the claim was made that in case of fair pricing
the company is capable and willing to produce it The Commission has no reason to
doubt this specific statement especially in the light of the fact that beech plywood
produced in the Union may be a viable alternative for low-reusability film-faced
Chinese imports, as explained in recital (44). The argument was, therefore, rejected.
8.2.
Interest of unrelated importers
(171) Following the provisional disclosure, ISB, a sampled unrelated Union importer,
argued in its questionnaire reply that the measures would cause a shortage in
product supply and an increase in their price for the end consumer. Altripan,
another sampled unrelated Union importer, argued in its questionnaire reply that
importers and traders relying on Chinese-origin products would face increased
costs, leading to reduced margins or higher prices for downstream buyers. Altripan
supported the imposition of anti-dumping duties on birch plywood, but as a member
of the PTIA, argued for the exclusion of poplar and eucalyptus plywood, addressed
in Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.5 of the provisional Regulation. The PTIA submitted
support letters from importers and users opposing the imposition of the measures57 .
These letters were based on common templates and were unsupported by additional
evidence.
(172) The Commission considered that when birch hardwood plywood from Russia and
Belarus was banned by sanctions in 2022 supply was substituted by eucalyptus
hardwood plywood, mainly from the PRC. In case the measures imposed on
hardwood plywood from the PRC in this investigation would cause temporary
57
PTIA submission nr. t25.006824
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 32 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties33
disturbances in the Union market, importers will be able to rely on sources of
supply in Southeast Asia, Africa or Latin America to supply hardwood plywood to
substitute current imports from the PRC, should importers and/or users wish to rely
on an alternative source of supply.
(173) Following the provisional disclosure, ISB argued that the limited supply of logs in
certain production centres, especially the Union, and the lack of their worldwide
trade would make it impossible to find alternative sources to the volume of
hardwood plywood currently supplied by China. PTIA highlighted that this is
especially true for eucalyptus plywood where the Union industry does not have the
capacity to supply the Union market with eucalyptus hardwood plywood panels
due to the lack of eucalyptus logs.
(174) The Commission found evidence of imports to the Union of eucalyptus hardwood
plywood produced in China from logs originating in Uruguay demonstrating that
trade in logs existed and that the allegedly limited amount of logs available in the
Union could be supplemented by imports. PTIA itself submitted that the EU relies
on imports for its production of eucalyptus plywood.
(175) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA submitted that there was no
verification of the replies of unrelated Union importers.
(176) Sampled unrelated importers providing a complete questionnaire reply were
verified before final disclosure.
(177) In view of the above the Commission maintained that the overall benefits of the
measures outweighed the potential negative impact for importers and confirmed
the conclusions in recitals (360) to (361) of the provisional Regulation.
8.3.
Interest of users
(178) Following the provisional disclosure, the PTIA, supported by the ETTF and GD
Holz, complained that essential evidence in the form of support letters from users
was not considered at provisional stage. In addition, the PTIA submitted further
support letters from users.
(179) The Commission examined the support letters from users at definitive stage. The
Commission found that the majority of the entities filing them did not register as
interested parties, some of the letters filled in by hand were illegible, others were
duplicates based on a common template. None of the letters was complemented by
actual evidence in support of the statements contained therein. Nevertheless, the
opposition of users to the measures, mainly representing the construction industry
and its suppliers and other industries represented in the cover letters, was duly
considered in respect of industrial users, e.g. the transport industry, and non
industrial users, as explained in recital (15) and recital (364) of the provisional
Regulation
(180) Following the provisional disclosure, the ETTF and PTIA argued that the
construction industry was struggling in the Union, and that their plight would be
worsened by the increase in the cost of film faced plywood. The Union must ensure
that a genuine universal right to housing is guaranteed, imposing anti-dumping
duties on film faced plywood from China would lead to rising construction costs
that are one of the main causes of the EU housing crisis. The PTIA listed a number
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 33 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties34
of steps by the European Commission, the Economic and Social Committee and
the European Parliament to support its position,
(181) The Commission examined the submission and found that its provisional
determination, as reported in recital (364) of the provisional Regulation, that
expenses related to film-faced plywood for formwork in construction projects
amount to a small portion of the overall costs held true. Any increase in the price
of film-faced plywood imported from China for end users, therefore, will only have
a minor impact on the overall cost and affordability of housing and the demand for
construction works. In addition, the international hardwood plywood market was
diverse and flexible, with actors ranging from Indonesia to Uruguay, that can
supply different parts of the Union market at competitive and fair prices.
Furthermore, the level of the duties imposed in this investigation was not
considered prohibitive so that importers can continue sourcing from Chinese
exporting producers at fair prices.
(182) In view of the above, the Commission maintained that the overall benefits of the
measures outweighed the potential negative impact for users and, therefore, the
conclusions in recitals (362) to (364) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.
8.4.
Conclusion on Union interest
(183) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling
reasons to rule that it was clearly not in the Union interest to impose measures on
imports of hardwood plywood originating in China.
9.
DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
9.1.
Definitive measures
(184) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation, level
of measures and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic
Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to
prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports
of the product concerned.
(185) 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:
Company
Dumping
margin (%)
Injury margin
(%)
Definitive anti-dumping
duty (%)
Pizhou
Jiangshan
Wood Co., Ltd
43,2
93,1
43,2
All other
imports
originating in
the People’s
86,8
185,9
86,8
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 34 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties35
Republic of
China
(186) The individual company anti-dumping duty rate specified in this Regulation was
established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, it reflects
the situation found during this investigation in respect to this company. This duty
rate is thus exclusively applicable to imports of the product under investigation
originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entity.
Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not
specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and should
be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s
Republic of China’.
(187) 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 Commission58. 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.
(188) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special
measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti
dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only
applicable upon presentation of 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. Until such invoice is presented, imports
should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports
originating in the People’s Republic of China’.
(189) 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 should 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 rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.
(190) Should the exports by the company benefiting from lower individual duty rate
increase significantly in volume, in particular 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, an anti
circumvention investigation may be initiated, provided that the conditions for doing
58
Email:
TRADE-TDI-NAME-CHANGE-REQUESTS@ec.europa.eu; European Commission,
Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate G, Wetstraat 170 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 35 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties36
so are met. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of
individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.
(191) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty
for all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China should apply not
only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but also to
the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation
period.
(192) Statistics of hardwood plywood are frequently expressed in m3. There is a
supplementary unit for CN codes 4412 31 10, 4412 31 90, 4412 33 10, 4412 33 10,
4412 33 20, 4412 33 30, 4412 33 90, and 4412 34 00 for the hardwood plywood
specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff59 . Accordingly, the
supplementary unit m3 is applicable for TARIC codes 4412 31 10 80, 4412 31 90
00, 4412 33 10 12, 4412 33 10 22, 4412 33 10 82, 4412 33 20 10, 4412 33 30 10,
4412 33 90 10 and 4412 34 00 10 and must be entered in the declaration for release
for free circulation. The weight in kg or tonnes should be indicated independently
from the supplementary unit (i.e. the number in m3).
9.2.
Definitive collection of the provisional duties
(193) In view of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to
the Union industry, the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected up to the
levels established under the present Regulation.
9.3.
Retroactivity
(194) As mentioned in Section 1.2, the Commission made imports of the product under
investigation subject to registration.
(195) During the definitive stage of the investigation, the data collected in the context of
the registration was assessed. The Commission analysed whether the criteria under
Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation were met for the retroactive collection of
definitive duties.
(196) There was no further substantial rise in imports in addition to the level of imports
which caused injury during the investigation period. When comparing the monthly
average import volumes of the product concerned during the investigation period
with the monthly average import volumes during the period from the month
following the initiation of this investigation (i.e., November 2024) up to and
including the month in which provisional measures were imposed (i.e., June 2025),
a 39% drop in the level of imports into the Union could be observed.
59
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1–675, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1987/2658/oj
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 36 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties37
Imports from the PRC in tons
Monthly average IP
37,798
Monthly average 11/2024 –
06/2025
22,892
10.
MONITORING OF IMPORTS
(197) In recital (382) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission decided to monitor
imports under newly created TARIC codes within CN codes 4412 10 00 and 4412
39 00, in view of alleged circumvention consisting of placing very thin outer layers
of softwood veneer on top of the hardwood plywood face veneer.
(198) After the provisional disclosure, the PTIA and the unrelated importer and
wholesaler Ljungberg Fritzoe, respectively, submitted that imports of plywood
with both outer plies made of coniferous wood and with a core containing plies of
non-coniferous wood did not represent a new practice since it imported this type of
plywood in the past. Ljungberg Fritzoe submitted that this type of plywood (‘K
plywood Twin’) served a specific purpose on the market, since due to its light
weight and material composition, it was well suited for a wide range of interior and
non-structural applications. Its main use, however, was in wall constructions, as a
wall panel behind gypsum board. It, therefore, considered that absence of a change
of a pattern of trade, the practice did not constitute an anti-circumvention. It also
urged the Commission to apply a consistent and cautious approach to product
scope, since in view of the concurrent investigation covering softwood plywood
from Brazil, an unwarranted extension of the current case risked undermining the
legal certainty for importers and weakening the clarity of the Union trade remedy
framework. The PTIA listed several products by the Union industry combining
softwood and hardwood as alleged proof that placing very thin outer layers of
softwood veneer on top of the hardwood plywood face veneer is common practice.
(199) The Commission considered that these submissions constituted no reason to cease
the monitoring of the imports of this product type. These elements will nevertheless
be considered in any follow-up action the Commission may resort to in the future
linked to possible circumvention activities.
Save nb: t25.009420 – Save Date: 01/10/2025 12:20:55 – Page 37 of 37 – TDI.Sensitive and for parties
