Attached is the final ruling announcement_EN(2). On November 20, 2025, the European Commission announced the final anti-dumping ruling on hardwood plywood. Jiangshan received a 43.3% anti-dumping duty rate, while other Chinese companies were assigned an 86.8% anti-dumping duty rate. For details, please refer to the English version of the final ruling attached. The AI-translated Chinese version of the final ruling is for reference only.
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
L series
2025/2333
20.11.2025
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/2333
of 19 November 2025
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (i) (‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
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 Union (i) (‘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) 2024/3140 (i) (‘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 (i) (‘the provisional Regulation’).
(i) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.
(ii) 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).
(iii) 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).
(iv) 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, 2025/1139, 10.6.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1139/oj).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
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 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 AJS (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 Regulation ().
(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. The PTIA also submitted a post-hearing brief. Additionally, the PTIA requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer heard the PTIA in writing and a subsequent hearing took place, following an additional request, on 16 October 2025, as explained in recital (11) below.
(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.
(9) The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China (final disclosure). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.
(10) Following final disclosure, the Commission received comments from the association of exporting producers, CEP, CNFPIA, Jiangshan Wood, the PTIA, exporting producer Xuzhou Sainland Wood Inc (‘Sainland Wood’) and Andrex B.V. (Andrex), an importer and distributor of container spare parts and materials, including hardwood plywood container floors. The comments are addressed below in the respective sections.
(11) Parties who so requested, were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Jiangshan Wood on 9 October 2025 and the PTIA on 13 October 2025. In addition, the PTIA requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer with regard to the right to be heard by the Hearing Officer, the right to equal treatment, the right to comment and submit evidence; the right to access to open file, the right to be informed of the main facts and considerations on which the European Commission based its findings and the right to good administration (). The hearing took place on 16 October 2025. The Hearing Officer did not request any further follow up action following the hearing held with the PTIA on 16 October 2025. On 21 October 2025, a hearing with the Hearing Officer was also requested by Jiangshan Wood. The hearing request could not be accommodated since it came outside of the deadlines stipulated in Sections 5.7 and 11 of Notice of Initiation and, due to its late submission, did not allow for the intervention of the Hearing Officer.
1.5. Claims on initiation
(12) 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.
(1) The Spanish Timber Trade Federation (AEM) 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.
(2) 125.009783, Section: Procedure.
2/41
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
(13) 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 utilisation, 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 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.
(14) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA continued to dispute the representativeness of the complaint and requested the Commission to disclose its calculation of standing.
(15) The Commission confirmed its findings on standing in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation. The note on standing (7) 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 replies (8). 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 to 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.
(16) After the final disclosure, the PTIA resubmitted that the Commission had not disclosed sufficiently precise production data allowing for the calculation of the standing of the complainants. The PTIA claimed that in the case of data relating to nine complainants disclosing relevant data in ranges was unwarranted.
(17) The Commission disclosed the production figures in ranges in order to protect the confidentiality of this sensitive, proprietary information. The Commission followed the standard procedure in anti-dumping investigations by disclosing such information in ranges. The number of complaining companies does not affect the obligation of the Commission to protect sensitive information. The Commission noted again that despite repeating the claims on standing, the PTIA did not submit any evidence demonstrating that the complainants lacked standing. The claim was, therefore, rejected.
(18) 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 submission of 15 January 2025 (9) rebutting the counterarguments submitted by the complainant (10) following PTIA’s comments on initiation (11). 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 law (12), arguing that information submitted after the deadline cannot be automatically disregarded.
(1) t24.008384.
(2) See for example t24.008226 for Panguaneta.
(3) t25.000896.
(4) t25.000277.
(5) t24.009472, t24.010197 and t24.040502.
(6) 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).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/jreg_impl/2025/2333/oj
(19) 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 the Greenwood Consortium’s rebuttal of interested parties’ comments met the deadline is incorrect.
(20) In addition, and most importantly, the Commission did not disregard the substance of the said rebuttal. The claims on Union interest, already submitted by the PTIA on 25 November 2024 (13) and 3 January 2025 (14), were considered by conducting a thorough analysis of the interests of different classes of users and specifically referencing the opinion of the PTIA in recitals (355) and (362) of the provisional Regulation.
(21) The argument in the submission referred to in recital (18), regarding the lack of standing of the Union industry and the excessive confidentiality of the standing calculations already raised by the PTIA in its submission of 25 November 2024 (15) and 3 January 2025 (16) was addressed in recitals (7) to (9), (12) and (13) of the provisional Regulation, as well as recital (15) above. The argument regarding the conclusions of the Commission and the Court on product scope in the birch plywood from Russia (17) investigation already raised in the PTIA’s submissions of 25 November 2024 (18) and 3 January 2025 (19) 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 2024 (20), 18 November 2024 (21) and 3 January 2025 (22) was addressed in recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional Regulation. The eucalyptus hardwood plywood product exclusion request already raised by the PTIA on 24 October 2024 (23), 18 November 2024 (24), 25 November 2024 (25), and 3 January 2025 (26) was addressed in recitals (61) and (62) of the provisional Regulation. The product exclusion request for plywood with outer layers of 0,3 mm or less, as well as thin plywood of thicknesses less than 6 mm, already raised on 24 October 2024 (27), 18 November 2024 (28), 25 November 2024 (29) and 3 January 2025 (30), was addressed in recitals (63) and (64) of the provisional Regulation. The product exclusion request for plywood with engineered veneers, already submitted on 24 October 2024 (31), 18 November 2024 (32), 25 November 2024 (33) and 3 January 2025 (34), was addressed in recitals (65) and (66) of the provisional Regulation. The tropical species exclusion request, already submitted on 3 January 2025 (35), was addressed in recitals (75) and (76) of the provisional regulation.
(22) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that its submission of 15 January 2025 was filed within the prescribed deadline, i.e. 25 June 2025, the deadline to comment on the disclosure of provisional findings (36), as contained in Section 7 of the Notice of Initiation. The PTIA claimed that because this submission contained new information it did not fall under the 75-day deadline for submitting comments on information submitted by other interested parties (37).
EN
OJ L, 20.11.2025
4/41
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
(13) t24.010502.
(14) t25.000176.
(15) See footnote 13.
(16) See footnote 14.
(17) 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, (OJ L 394, 9.11.2021, p. 7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/1930/oj).
(18) See footnote 13.
(19) See footnote 14.
(20) t24.009472.
(21) t24.010197.
(22) See footnote 14.
(23) See footnote 20.
(24) See footnote 21.
(25) See footnote 13.
(26) See footnote 14.
(27) See footnote 20.
(28) See footnote 21.
(29) See footnote 13.
(30) See footnote 14.
(31) See footnote 20.
(32) See footnote 21.
(33) See footnote 13.
(34) See footnote 14.
(35) See footnote 14.
(36) Section 7 Notice of Initiation, see footnote 2.
(37) Section 8 Notice of Initiation, see footnote 2.
(23) The Commission rejected the argument because the title of the PTIA submission of 15 January 2025 read ‘Rebuttal of the Plywood Trade Interest Alliance on the Complainants’ comments’ (1), clearly referring to the submission of comments on the information submitted by other interested parties, namely the complainant, and, therefore, subject to the 75-day deadline set out in Section 8 of the Notice of Initiation.
(24) Furthermore, the Commission recalled that the deadline for submitting any information before provisional measures were imposed was 70 days after initiation, which was shorter than the 75-day deadline for submitting comments on information submitted by other interested parties (2). The PTIA’s claim that new factual information can be submitted until the end of the deadline to submit comments on the disclosure of the provisional findings irrespective of the deadlines contained in Section 8 of the Notice of Initiation was incorrect. PTIA argued that since the final deadline for submitting new information was the end of the period for comments on provisional measures, as long as it contained new information, a submission could be made anytime. The Commission rejected the argument because the deadline of 70 days after initiation for submissions for the provisional stage was clearly set out in Section 7 of the Notice of Initiation.
(25) The Commission further noted that, contrary to the claim by the PTIA, there was no new information in its submission of 15 January 2025. In the section entitled ‘Alleged Circumvention Claims’ (4), the PTIA did not make any claims or submit any evidence regarding the monitoring of hardwood plywood with a thin outer layer of softwood, see recital (382) of the provisional Regulation. Instead, it argued against the registration of imports for products falling outside the current product scope and requested the Commission to define unambiguously the product scope. The issue of registration of products falling outside the scope of the investigation had no factual basis, was not raised and, therefore, was not relevant for this case. The product scope was also defined unambiguously in the Notice of Initiation (4).
(26) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that the Commission did not take into account the substance of its claims from the 15 January 2025 submission.
(27) The Commission reaffirmed its statements in recitals (20) and (21), regarding the treatment of the relevant substantive claims of the PTIA. The PTIA submission in question is a counter-rebuttal of the rebuttal of the complainant filed on 20 December 2024 (2), rebutting the submission of the PTIA and other interested parties made since the initiation of the investigation. In its counter-rebuttal, the PTIA was limited in scope to the issues contained in the document submitted by the complainant that in itself was limited to issues already raised by the PTIA in previous submissions (24 October 2024 (3), 18 November 2024 (4) and 25 November 2024 (5)). The counter-rebuttal of the PTIA was, therefore, limited by definition to additional clarifications to claims that were already made.
(28) After the final disclosure, the PTIA argued that information contained in the Annexes of the 15 January 2025 submission was not taken into account by the Commission.
(1) See footnote 9.
(2) ‘Any information for the stage of provisional findings should be submitted within 70 days from the date of publication of this Notice, unless otherwise specified.
Unless otherwise specified, interested parties should not submit new factual information after the deadline to comment on the disclosure of the provisional findings or the information document at the stage of provisional findings. After this deadline, interested parties may only submit new factual information if they can demonstrate that such new factual information is necessary to rebut factual allegations made by other interested parties and provided that such new factual information can be verified within the time available to complete the investigation in a timely manner’. Notice of Initiation Section 7, Alinea 1 and 2, see footnote 2.
(4) Recitals 29-45, see footnote 9.
(5) Section 2 of the Notice of Initiation, see footnote 2.
(6) See footnote 10.
(7) See footnote 20.
(8) See footnote 11.
(9) See footnote 13.
EN
(29) The Commission found, in particular, that the substance of the performance report submitted as an annex showing the difference in quality in Chinese and Union produced film faced plywood was already known and was addressed in recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional Regulation. The substance of the evidence submitted relating to the limitation of production of thin faced plywood by the Union industry was already known and it was referred to in recitals (63) and (64) of the provisional Regulation. In its submission of 25 November 2024 (*), the PTIA referred to the ‘support letters’ of Union companies already as ‘more than 100 support letters’. The existence of these, therefore, was known. In addition, all support letters were based on a template and raised exactly the same points. The opposition of the signatory companies was already considered when assessing Union interest, see recital (20).
(30) The 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.
(31) The Commission considered that it had thoroughly analysed all of the PTIA’s claims related to Union interest at provisional stage, see recital (20). The argument was, therefore, rejected.
1.6. Sampling
1.6.1. Sampling of Union producers
(32) Following provisional disclosure, the PTIA requested an explanation for not including UPM or Latvijas Finieris in the sample.
(33) 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
(34) 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. After the final disclosure, the Association of exporting producers resubmitted the claim, which was addressed below in this Section.
(35) 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 finally one duty rate for those who did not participate in the investigation or failed to make themselves known to the Commission.
(*) The measures will lead multiple companies, from importers/traders to end-users, to shut down operations since it is impossible to pass on to their customers a duty that could range between 89 % and 335 %. It is noted that we’ve received more than 100 support letters from importers’ customers. These are retail shops, DIY stores, wood stores, construction companies, packaging materials and furniture companies in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Luxembourg who oppose the imposition of duties since duties will limit their product offering and suppress their margins. We will submit the support letters separately to the Commission’, recital 149, see footnote 13.
6/41
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
(36) 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.
(37) 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.
(38) 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.
(39) 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.
(40) 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.
(41) 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.
(42) After the final disclosure, the Association of exporting producers, CEP and Saintland Wood submitted comments on sampling. The Association of exporting producers repeated that the Commission’s decision to apply Article 18 to cooperating non-sampled exporters, and to abandon the sampling constituted serious legal errors that materially distorted the investigation’s outcome and breached fundamental obligations under EU regulations and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. It argued that (1) the Commission’s position that there was no sufficient time to include a new company in the sample was unconvincing and irrelevant to the treatment of non-sampled exporters; that (2) the failure of certain companies to cooperate did not absolve the Commission of its obligation to treat cooperating non-sampled exporters in accordance with the basic Regulation and WTO Anti-dumping Agreement; and that (3) the burden of managing procedural deadlines and the sampling process lied with the Commission. The association further submitted that the explanation by the Commission that it could not determine a duty for the cooperating exporting producers solely based on sampling forms was flawed and inconsistent with the Commission’s own requirements, since the sampling forms were completed by exporters in full compliance with the Commission’s instructions in the questionnaire. It further argued that the Commission’s assertion that a 5 % share of the imports to the Union is per se unrepresentative directly contradicts the logic of the Hitti Seramik judgment (“), where a 6 % share of production volume was found sufficient.
(43) The Commission reiterated that applying Article 18 of the basic Regulation complied with both the basic Regulation and WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. Article 18 of the basic Regulation refers to situations where parties do not provide the necessary information within the time limits provided by the Commission. The decision on whether or not there was sufficient time to include another exporting producer in the sample has to be assessed in light of the specific circumstances of each investigation, and in this particular case, adding new companies in the sample would not have allowed the Commission to timely conclude the investigation. The decision whether a sample is representative depends on a number of factors such as representativity in terms of diversity of the products, size of the industry and many others, to be considered on a case-by-case basis in every investigation. Therefore, the fact that in another case, a sample of producers representing a similar percentage of volume of production was deemed representative did not contradict the conclusion of the Commission which was based on the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Commission maintained that abandoning the sample and applying ‘facts available’ in this specific case was justified.
(44) After definitive disclosure, CEP questioned that a failure to cooperate by the sampled companies resulted in depriving the other cooperating parties from their status as cooperating companies and resulted in abandoning the sampling. CEP argued that the Commission wrongly applied Article 18 of the basic Regulation since several exporting producers came forward and expected to be sampled. According to CEP, in a situation where two of the three producers cooperate and get a zero or de minimis margin, the non-sampled companies would be treated as cooperating and the resulting duty would not be so punitive. CEP further considered that sampling in general is of an exceptional rule compared to what is generally applied in standard investigations. It argued that parties who submitted a sampling form and obtained the cooperating status should remain unaffected regardless on whether the Commission abandoned or not the sampling, and that these parties should be subject to the same duty as the cooperating party.
(45) The Commission referred to its explanations above in this section on why it had to abandon the sampling. It considered that the resulting duty was not unfair and that the methodology to establish the dumping duty detailed in Section 3.5.2 below was based in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation on data of all exporting producers. It considered that this represented a reasonable and accurate method to establish the dumping margin for all other imports, and it reiterated that it could not base the dumping margin for all other imports solely on data of one company which imports into the Union were not deemed to be representative of all the imports to the Union. It therefore rejected the claim.
(“) See Hitti Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v European Commission, Case T-230/23, ECLI:EU:T:2025:579, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) (11 June 2025).
8/41
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
OJ L, 20.11.2025
EN
(46) After the final disclosure, Saintland Wood regretted that it was not selected to be part of the sample and that no additional producers were added to the sample after two companies had ceased cooperating which was in its view due to their lack of understanding of EU law. The company also mentioned that its parent company was sampled twenty years ago in an investigation where six producers were selected, compared to only two in the current case, and it therefore questioned if rules on sampling changed.
(47) The Commission recalled that the sampling remained to be based on the same article of the basic Regulation (Article 17) which did not change in substance, and that the number of the sampled companies depends on the circumstances of each individual case. In this specific case, the initial sample of two companies was deemed representative. As explained in recital (39) of the provisional Regulation, given that any new company to the sample would have to be given another at least 30 days to provide the questionnaire reply, the reply would have come more than two months after the initially provided deadline, and it was thus considered that in view of procedural deadlines, there was not sufficient time to select a new company. The Commission further noted that Saintland Wood failed to apply for individual treatment pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation by submitting a full questionnaire response within the deadline imposed by the Commission. The Commission thus rejected the claims.
1.7. Questionnaire replies and verification visits
(48) In the absence of comments regarding the questionnaire replies and verification visits, the Commission confirmed recitals (40) to (43) of the provisional Regulation.
(49) 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
(50) 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’).
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(51) 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 case (“) 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 characteristics (“)).
(“) See footnote 17.
(“) Idem, recital 26.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2333/oj
