2025/501

19.3.2025

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/501

of 18 March 2025

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

1.   

PROCEDURE

1.1.   

Initiation

(1) On 16 February 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of glass fibre yarns (‘GFY’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the

Official Journal of the European Union

 (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 3 January 2024 by Glass Fibre Europe (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of GFY in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

1.2.   

Provisional measures

(3) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 16 September 2024, 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.

(4) No comments were received regarding the accuracy of the calculation.

(5) On 15 October 2024, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of GFY originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 (3) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

1.3.   

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 following parties filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation:

— The complainant.

— The users Proxim Plewka I Wspolnicy Spolka Komandytowa (‘Proxim’), Kelteks d.o.o. (‘Kelteks’), Rymatex sp. z o. o. (‘Rymatex’), Tolnatext Fonalfeldolgozó es Műszakiszövet-gyártó Bt. (‘Tolnatext’) and Vitrulan Holding GmbH (‘Vitrulan’).

— The unrelated importer FIBKO Sp. z o.o. (‘FIBKO’).

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the users Proxim and Kelteks.

(8) A third user filed a written submission and was heard. However, the user requested that their comments be treated as confidential and did not provide a non-confidential summary of the submission and the hearing. Consequently, in accordance with Article 19(3) of the basic Regulation the Commission disregarded the information provided by this user in its analysis, as it could not be satisfactorily demonstrated from appropriate sources that the information was correct.

(9) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions when appropriate.

(10) 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 GFY originating in China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(11) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Solidian & Kelteks and Rymatex.

1.4.   

Claims on initiation

(12) In the absence of any comments, recitals 1 to 2 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1.5.   

Sampling

(13) After provisional disclosure, the complainant remarked that in recital 8, the name of one of the Union producers was misspelled. The Commission acknowledges that correct name is Valmieras Stikla Skiedra AS.

(14) In the absence of other comments on sampling, the conclusions in recitals 7 to 18 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1.6.   

Individual examination

(15) After provisional disclosure, one Chinese exporting producer, Schaeffler Friction Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd, enquired about the individual examination. However, contrary to the requirement in Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation this company did not submit a response to the questionnaire for exporting producers within the deadline specified in the Notice of Initiation. Therefore, the application was rejected.

1.7.   

Questionnaire replies and verification visits

(16) Following provisional disclosure, a verification visit pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation was carried out at the premises of the users Proxim in Poland and RELATS, S.A.U. in Spain.

(17) The complainant noted that also in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the name of one of the Union producers was misspelled. The Commission acknowledged that this name should be corrected to Valmieras Stikla Skiedra AS, Valmiera, Latvia.

1.8.   

Investigation period and period considered

(18) In the absence of any comments, recital 25 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

2.   

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(19) Recital 26 of the provisional Regulation set out the definition of the product concerned. The product under investigation is glass fibre yarns, whether or not twisted, excluding glass fibre slivers, glass fibre cords and chopped strands, currently falling under CN codes ex 7019 13 00 and ex 7019 19 00 (TARIC Codes 7019 13 00 10, 7019 13 00 15, 7019 13 00 20, 7019 13 00 25, 7019 13 00 30, 7019 13 00 50, 7019 13 00 87, 7019 13 00 94, 7019 19 00 30, 7019 19 00 85).

(20) The fibre cords, which, together with glass fibre slivers and chopped strands, are not part of the product scope, are strong textile glass fibre structures made by twisting, plying, cabling, or braiding filament or staple fibre yarns.

(21) With respect to the product scope, on 13 November 2024, the user P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (‘P-D Glasseiden’) requested that a product called Compofil, a combination of glass and thermoplastic fibres, be excluded from the product scope. The product is currently imported under CN code 7019 19 00 .

(22) Based on the evidence provided by P-D Glasseiden and its own research, the Commission concluded that Compofil had different basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics from the product concerned and was therefore not part of the product concerned. The Union industry agreed with this conclusion.

(23) Based on the above considerations, the Commission clarified that the product scope of the investigation did not include Compofil.

3.   

DUMPING

3.1.   

Procedure for the determination of the normal value under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation

(24) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments on the procedure for determining the normal value in this case under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(25) The Commission’s provisional findings in recital 41 of the provisional Regulation were, therefore confirmed.

3.2.   

Normal value

(26) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments on recital 43 that sets out the terms of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(27) The Commission’s provisional findings in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation were, therefore, confirmed.

3.2.1.   

Existence of significant distortions

(28) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments regarding the existence of significant distortions. Therefore, the provisional finding of recital 70 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.2.   

Representative country

(29) Following provisional disclosure, the Commission did not receive comments regarding the selection of the representative country. Therefore, the provisional findings in recital 92 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.3.   

Sources to establish undistorted costs

3.2.3.1.   Raw materials

(30) Following provisional disclosure, the complainant referred to recital 105 of the provisional Regulation and reiterated its request for a clarification from the Commission on whether oxygen was included under consumables. The complainant further requested that oxygen be treated separately, asserting that it represents a significant cost factor.

(31) The Commission confirmed that it considered all inputs in the normal value calculation, either separately or aggregated as consumables. Verified data from Henan Guangyuan showed that oxygen is not a significant cost in manufacturing. Additionally, no evidence was provided by the complainant to prove otherwise. As a result, the request was denied.

(32) No other comment was received regarding raw materials. Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals 98 to 107 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.3.2.   Other factors of production

(33) No comments were received regarding the other factors of production (labour, electricity, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, steam and water). Therefore, the provisional findings and provisional conclusions in recitals 108 to 116 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.3.3.   Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A and profits

(34) No comments were received regarding manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A and profits. Therefore, the provisional findings and conclusions in recitals 117 to 125 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.4.   

Calculation of the normal value

(35) No comments were received regarding the calculation of the normal value. Therefore, recitals 126 to 130 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.5.   

Export price

(36) No comments were received regarding the export price. Therefore, recitals 131 to 134 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.6.   

Comparison

(37) No comments were received regarding the comparison. Therefore, recital 135 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

3.2.7.   

Dumping margin

(38) No comments were received regarding the dumping margin calculation. Therefore, recital 146 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(39) The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

4.   

INJURY

4.1.   

Definition of the Union industry and Union production

(40) In the absence of comments on the determination of the Union industry and Union production, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 147 and 148 of the provisional Regulation.

4.2.   

Determination of the relevant Union market

(41) In the absence of comments on the determination of the relevant Union market, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 149 to 154 of the provisional Regulation.

4.3.   

Union consumption

(42) In the absence of comments on the Union consumption, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 155 to 158 of the provisional Regulation.

4.4.   

Imports from the country concerned

(43) In the absence of comments on the imports from the country concerned, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 159 to 163 of the provisional Regulation.

4.4.1.   

Prices of the imports from the country concerned and price undercutting

(44) In the absence of comments on the price of the imports from the country concerned, price undercutting and price depression, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 162 to 167 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.   

Economic situation of the Union industry

4.5.1.   

General remarks

(45) In the absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 168 to 171 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.2.   

Macroeconomic indicators

4.5.2.1.   Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(46) In the absence of comments on the production, production capacity and capacity utilisation, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 172 to 175 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.2.2.   Sales volume and market share

(47) In the absence of comments on the sales volume and market share, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 176 to 178 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.2.3.   Growth

(48) In the absence of comments on the growth, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital 179 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.2.4.   Employment and productivity

(49) In the absence of comments on the employment and productivity, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 180 and 181 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.2.5.   Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping

(50) In the absence of comments on the magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past dumping, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 182 and 183 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.3.   

Microeconomic indicators

4.5.3.1.   Prices and factors affecting prices

(51) In the absence of comments on the prices and factors affecting prices, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 184 to 186 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.3.2.   Labour costs

(52) In the absence of comments on labour costs, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 187 and 188 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.3.3.   Inventories

(53) In the absence of comments on inventories, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 189 and 190 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.3.4.   Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

(54) In the absence of comments on the profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 191 to 196 of the provisional Regulation.

4.5.4.   

Conclusion on injury

(55) The conclusions reached in recitals 197 to 199 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.   

CAUSATION

5.1.   

Effects of the dumped imports

(56) As indicated in recital 203 of the provisional regulation Chinese importers had substantially increased their market share over the period considered and maintained a high market share in the IP while selling at injurious prices. Moreover, as explained in recital 203 of the provisional Regulation the complainant provided evidence that users were building up high stocks in 2022 and started to become reluctant to source from the EU industry in 2023. After provisional measures no party contested the information contained in that recital. In any case, the Commission considered that all other elements on the file were sufficient to maintain the conclusion that the Chinese dumped imports caused the material injury of the Union industry.

(57) As already established at provisional stage, China increased its market share significantly throughout the period considered and maintained a high market share in the investigation period (from 15 %-25 % in 2020 to 30 %-40 % in the investigation period, that is an increase by 68 %). Besides, the level of the Chinese export prices to the Union during the IP was extremely low when compared both with the Union industry sales prices and their cost of production. As indicated in the tables 4 and 8 of the provisional Regulation, the average import price from China was 1 720 EUR/tonne, while the average price of the Union industry was [2 150–2 250] EUR/tonne and unit cost of production [2 280–2 330] EUR/tonne. In addition, as indicated in recital 166 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission established significant undercutting both for the cooperating exporting producer and for all other imports from China as well as significant price suppression, as pointed out in recital 198 of the provisional Regulation. Only due to these low prices, China maintained its market share in a context of a weakening demand while the Union industry could not recover its costs because of the low-priced Chinese exports. In the context of increasing cost of production of the Union industry during the investigation period, the average price of the imports from China during the investigation period was already lower than the prices and cost of production of the Union industry in 2022 when the latter was still profitable. This further illustrates the price injury caused by the dumped imports during the investigation period.

(58) In view of the above and in the absence of any comments, recitals 201 to 204 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.   

Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   

Imports from third countries

(59) In absence of any comments, recitals 205 to 209 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.2.   

Export performance of the Union industry

(60) In absence of any comments, recitals 210 to 211 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.3.   

Consumption

(61) In absence of any comments, recitals 212 to 213 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.4.   

Captive use

(62) In absence of any comments, recital 214 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

5.2.5.   

Consumption

(63) In absence of any comments, recitals 215 to 225 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.3.   

Conclusion on causation

(64) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions on causation as set out in recitals 226 to 227 of the provisional Regulation.

6.   

LEVEL OF MEASURES

6.1.   

Injury margin

(65) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recitals 229 to 242 of the provisional Regulation.

(66) As provided by Article 9(4), third subparagraph, of the basic Regulation, and given that the Commission did not register imports during the period of pre-disclosure, it analysed the development of import volumes to establish if there had been a further substantial rise in imports subject to the investigation during the period of pre-disclosure described in recital 3 and therefore reflect the additional injury resulting from such increase in the determination of the injury margin.

(67) Based on data from the Surveillance 3 database, import volumes from China during the four weeks period of pre-disclosure were 2 % 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.

Therefore, the Commission did not adjust the injury elimination level in this regard.

6.2.   

Conclusion on the level of measures

(68) Following the above assessment, definitive anti-dumping duties should be set as below in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation:

7.   

UNION INTEREST

(69) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, several new interested parties came forward. As indicated in recital 6, five users and one unrelated importer submitted comments. Hearings were held with two of those users. The complainant made a submission addressing the arguments raised by the other interested parties.

7.1.   

Interest of the Union industry

(70) In absence of any comments, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recital 245 of the provisional Regulation.

7.2.   

Interest of unrelated importers

(71) In its comments on the provisional findings, FIBKO, an independent importer and distributor of GFY argued that the Union producers lacked the production capacity to meet the demand for GFY from independent fabric manufacturers who therefore buy GFY from importers and distributors. FIBKO argued that the Union industry, which also manufactured fabrics and products from GFY, had production shortages and lacked both the capacity and the willingness to supply independent users with the necessary quantities of GFY. In addition, FIBKO expressed its concerns regarding fair competition mentioning a potential emergence of monopolistic practices by the integrated Union producers.

(72) FIBKO did not substantiate its claims concerning supply shortages on the Union market nor did it provide any evidence in this respect. In fact, the Commission found at provisional stage that the production capacity of the Union producers of [130 000–150 000] tonnes in the IP was higher than the total Union consumption of [98 000–118 000] tonnes in the same period (4). In any event, the imposition of anti-dumping duties does not prevent an independent importer from continuing to import GFY from China under fair market conditions or from other third countries and to continue to supply users with the quantities of GFY which they need for their production.

(73) The argument of a potential emergence of monopolistic practices is addressed in section 7.3.1 below.

(74) In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recital 246 of the provisional Regulation.

7.3.   

Interest of users

(75) Following the imposition of provisional measures, several users commented that the measures would create a dominant position of the two Union producers on the Union market and would lead to supply shortages. They argued that it would be against the Union interest to impose measures on GFY. They also requested that the measures, if imposed, include the downstream products made of GFY originating in other non-EU countries which use cheap Chinese GFY as raw material in order to protect users from unfair competition from third countries on their market.

7.3.1.   

Dominant market position of the Union producers

(76) Users indicated that the Union GFY market was characterized by a high concentration of production within a limited number of integrated manufacturers. They argued that these integrated companies possessed significant control over both the production and pricing of GFY. They further claimed that the vertical integration of Union producers would enable them to manipulate market dynamics to their advantage.

(77) In its reply to the user’s submissions, the complainant argued that the two Union producers did not hold a dominant market position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU as their combined market share did not exceed 50 % during the period considered. In fact, the combined market share of the Union industry even fell by 12 percentage points between 2020 and 2023. In addition, the complainant argued that aside of the Chinese exporters also Taiwanese, Mexican and other third country GFY producers are present on the Union market.

(78) The Commission first noted that in the framework of the present investigation, it cannot assess or conclude whether the Union industry holds a dominant market position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. In any event, the Commission found at provisional stage that imports from third countries had a combined market share of 28 % which indicates that users have alternative sources of supply other than the Chinese or Union producers. Therefore, the Commission rejected the users’ arguments set out in recital 76.

(79) In a hearing, following the definitive disclosure, Rymatex argued that the low prices of Chinese exports are based on very high internal competition, low energy costs, high production efficiency and to a lesser degree on government support.

(80) Rymatex did not substantiate the relation between the alleged high internal competition and the level of export prices. The efficiency of the cooperating exporting producer was taken into consideration when establishing the normal value, as they actual consumption rates were used in the calculation. Finally, regarding the prices of the inputs including energy, they were found to be affected by the significant distortions found in the PRC. No interested party provided any accurate and appropriate evidence, within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a) of the Basic Regulation, positively establishing that any of the costs (including energy) were not distorted. The Commission therefore rejected this argument.

7.3.2.   

Supply shortages

(81) Several users argued that the fact that the Union producers are integrated and competing with their users might lead to supply shortages. Some users also added that the Union industry did not manufacture all the types of GFY needed for these users and the fact that the anti-dumping duties would apply also to these types of GFY would be a severe disadvantage for users. One user further claimed they had experienced issues with the availability of GFY from the Union producers, which primarily utilize GFY in the production of downstream fabrics that directly compete with the users’ products.

(82) While the fact that both Union producers are integrated and compete with their users on several products could potentially lead to situations in which the Union producers favour their captive consumption over supplying the Union market, the users have not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim that this is a structural situation and not limited to temporary events. While the Union producers might not currently offer all type of GFY, it has not been argued that only specific Chinese exporters have the technology to produce these types of GFY needed by this user. Given that there are substantial imports from other third countries, the Commission therefore concluded that the temporary need to import a specific GFY with higher duties until a switch to another supplier can take place should not constitute a compelling reason against measures.

(83) Further, taking into account third country exporters, situations of supply shortages should not singularly arise from the behaviour of the Union producers.

(84) The Commission therefore rejected the users’ claims in this respect.

(85) In a hearing, following the definitive disclosure, Rymatex argued that the available supply from the Union producers would not provide a stable supply situation for users and that duties on Chinese GFY would seriously affect the user’s ability to compete on the Union market.

(86) The Commission concluded that the file did not contain sufficient documentary evidence for a structural instable supply situation also taking into account alternative sourcing as described in recital 78 and could therefore not determine the supply situation to constitute a compelling reason against the imposition of definitive measures.

7.3.3.   

Price pressure on users’ products from non-EU competitors

(87) The users argued that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on GFY from China would strengthen the competitive position of manufacturers of downstream glass fibre products from outside the EU, specifically in the Balkan region which do not pay anti-dumping duties on their raw materials.

(88) No data was submitted during the investigation which would show that the producers of the downstream glass fibre products were exposed to heavy competition from abroad. The Commission also pointed out that none of the users submitted calculations which would give insight into the price pressure and the effect of the anti-dumping duties on users.

(89) The Commission therefore rejected the users’ claims in this respect.

7.4.   

Other factors

(90) One user claimed that it had not received information concerning the present investigation from the user industry association. The company argued, that this raises concerns about the governance, transparency and accountability of this organisation.

(91) The Commission took note of the comments and conducted a careful analysis. In this regard, the Commission could confirm on the basis of publicly available data that the two Union producers were, indeed, members of Tech-Fab (5). The Commission confirmed that the user association Tech-Fab was not reported by the complainant in the list of representative associations annexed to the complaint. The relations between the user, its association and the legal representative fall outside the scope of the present investigation. The Commission recalled that the initiation of the case was made public by publication in the

Official Journal of the European Union

and on the website of the Commission, and that the user in question registered as an interested party several months ahead of the provisional disclosure and provisional regulation.

7.5.   

Conclusion on Union interest

(92) In light of the finding in recitals 70 to 91 of the present Regulation, there are no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures, therefore the Commission confirmed its conclusions from recital 250 of the provisional Regulation.

8.   

DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

8.1.   

Definitive measures

(93) 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.

(94) 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:

(95) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation in respect to these companies. These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the product under investigation originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. 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’.

(96) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (6). 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

.

(97) 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’.

(98) 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.

(99) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates 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 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.

(100) 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.

8.2.   

Definitive collection of the provisional duties

(101) 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.   

FINAL PROVISION

(102) In view of Article 109 of Regulation 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the

Official Journal of the European Union

on the first calendar day of each month.

(103) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of glass fibre yarns, whether or not twisted, excluding glass fibre slivers, glass fibre cords and chopped strands currently falling under CN codes ex 7019 13 00 and ex 7019 19 00 (TARIC codes 7019 13 00 10, 7019 13 00 15, 7019 13 00 20, 7019 13 00 25, 7019 13 00 30, 7019 13 00 50, 7019 13 00 87, 7019 13 00 94, 7019 19 00 30, 7019 19 00 85) and originating in the People’s Republic of China.

2.   The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:

3.   The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the Member States’ customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by name and function, drafted as follows: ‘

I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume in unit we are using) of (product concerned) sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in

[

country concerned

]

. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.

’ Until such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China shall apply.

4.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the

Official Journal of the European Union

.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1)  

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21

.

(2)  Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of glass fibre yarns (‘GFY’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (

OJ C, C/2024/1484, 16.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1484/oj

).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 of 11 October 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China (

OJ L, 2024/2673, 14.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2673/oj

).

(4)  Table 2 and Table 5 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2673 of 11 October 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of glass fibre yarns originating in the People’s Republic of China (

OJ L, 2024/2673, 14.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2673/oj

).

(5)  

https://tech-fab-europe.eu/members/

, consulted on 13.1.2025.

(6)  Email:

TRADE-TDI-NAME-CHANGE-REQUESTS@ec.europa.eu

; European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate G, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 170, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

(7)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (

OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj

).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/501/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)