Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/261of 10 February 2025imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People’s Republic of China

(208) Further to the above, the Commission noted that picture depicted in table 3 above does not reflect that Chinese biodiesel reduced the physical demand for other biodiesel types, namely crop-based biodiesel made in the Union, by double the amounts in table 3 as a result of the double-counting of Chinese biodiesel that is further explained in the next section.

(209) In the absence of other comments on this section, the conclusions in recitals 364 to 367 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.

Effects of other factors

5.2.1.

Imports from third countries

(210) The correction of table 6 referred to in section 4.5.2.2 above had a minor impact on some of the market shares published in table 12 of the provisional Regulation. The definitive table 12 is as follows:

Table 12

Imports from third countries

Source:

Comext (volume & average price) except for 2020 United Kingdom for which, absent of conclusive data in Comext, estimations of volumes and prices were made on the basis of GTA prices.

Comext data for pure biodiesel and its blends.

Comext data for pure biodiesel only. Data for code 2710194329 for Singapore. Data for code 38260010 for Argentina, UK and other third countries. Data for codes 2710194329 and 38260010 for other countries excluding China (for the UK share included in other countries excluding China, only code 38260010 was considered).

Country202020212022IPArgentinaVolume (tonnes)8741991292775997210490644Index (2020 = 100)10014811456Market share5,1 %7,4 %5,6 %2,7 %Average price (EUR/tonne)732107614191425Index (2020 = 100)100147194195United KingdomVolume (tonnes)60815599008210327901100392Index (2020 = 100)100163170181Market share3,6 %5,7 %5,8 %6,0 %Average price (EUR/tonne)1027136116151297Index (2020 = 100)100132157126SingaporeVolume (tonnes)468998279098689578868513Index (2020 = 100)10060147185Market share2,8 %1,6 %3,8 %4,7 %Average price (EUR/tonne)1202192213881495Index (2020 = 100)100160115124Other third countriesVolume (tonnes)1551084139042721913482544445Index (2020 = 100)10090141164Market share9,1 %8,0 %12,2 %13,9 %

Average price (EUR/tonne)858116917361468Index (2020 = 100)100136202171Total of all third countries except the country concernedVolume (tonnes)3502436395238249109265003994Index (2020 = 100)100113140143Market share20,5 %22,7 %27,3 %27,3 %Average price (EUR/tonne)817116514731299Index (2020 = 100)100143180159

(211) In its comments after the provisional disclosure, CCCMC insisted that Union producers lost most of their market share when imports from third countries increased. CCCMC argued that whereas the market share of the Union industry went down by almost 10 percentage points during the period considered, the Chinese market share increased by 2,6 percentage points, thus much less than the third-country imports. CCCMC complained that, in the absence of information on feedstocks of imports from third countries, the Commission failed to make a meaningful conclusion about the impact of those imports and that the Commission made assumptions that remained unexplained according to which imports from third countries do not attract typically higher prices in the market.

(212) The Commission confirmed that, in light of the information at hand, a major share of imports from third countries other than China was crop-based, as confirmed by, inter alia, EBB’s 2023 Statistical report

EBB 2023 Statistical Report available at https://ebb-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/EBB_Statistical_Report2023-Final.pdf (last viewed on 18 November 2024).

, GAIN reports on China

GAIN. Biofuels Annual of 19 October 2023. China. Available at https://fas.usda.gov/data/china-biofuels-annual-9 (last viewed on 18 November 2024).

and the European Union

GAIN. Biofuels Annual of 14 August 2023. European Union. Available at https://fas.usda.gov/data/european-union-biofuels-annual-3 (last viewed on 18 November 2024).

, market intelligence

In light of https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/malaysian-2024-biofuel-output-seen-rising-if-b20-biodiesel-usage-expanded-2024-03-05/ (last viewed on 18 November 2024), Malaysian biodiesel is palm oil-based. For a worldwide overview, see page 27 of UFOP’s report on global market supply 2023/2024, available at https://www.ufop.de/files/8217/0548/9837/UFOP-2116_Report_Global_Market_Supply_A5_EN_23_24_160124.pdf.

and a series of trade defence investigations made by the Commission

For an example, see Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1344. Recital (32) reads: The investigation indicated that biodiesel produced in Indonesia is primarily palm oil methyl ester (PME), which is derived from palm oil…. For another example, see Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/244 of 11 February 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina (OJ L 40, 12.2.2019, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/244/oj). Recital (41) reads: The investigation showed that biodiesel produced in Argentina is exclusively soybean methyl ester (SME) derived from soybean oil….

. In relation to imports from Singapore, the Commission collected evidence indicating that the prices of such imports were not reflective of actual market conditions. As to imports into the Union originating in the United Kingdom

For feedstocks in the United Kingdom, see for instance https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/bioenergy-crops-in-england-and-the-uk-2008-2023/bioenergy-crops-in-england-and-the-uk-2008-2023 and the application in the public file of the investigation by the Trade Remedies Service available at https://www.trade-remedies.service.gov.uk/public/case/AD0058/.

, they were mostly traded goods

Imports into the Union from United Kingdom, a country with a major domestic biodiesel demand, were deemed to be mostly traded goods as their volume in table 12 of the provisional Regulation was basically double the total biodiesel production in that country. This is patent from table C.41.1 of OECD/FAO (2022), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022-2031, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1b0b29c-en. Also, pages 30–32 of the application in the public file of the investigation by the Trade Remedies Service available at https://www.trade-remedies.service.gov.uk/public/case/AD0058/ noted that Greenergy group had major exporting activities. Table on page 27 (150000 – 200000 tonnes from Olleco plus Argent) of the same application and estimates on page 29 (320000 – 370000 tonnes for Greenergy) of the application suggest that production of biodiesel in the United Kingdom was around half a million tonnes (or slightly more).

, possibly including position balancing at cross-border UK

United Kingdom.

/EU producers at transfer prices, that the Commission could not further trace. In addition, there are indications of abnormal trading practices in the sector in the United Kingdom during the period considered

Recitals 12 and 13 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1273 of 7 May 2024 terminating the investigation of the possible circumvention, by imports of biodiesel consigned from the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom, whether declared as originating in the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom or not, of the countervailing measures concerning imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia, and terminating the registration of imports (OJ L, 2024/1273, 8.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2024/1273/oj).

. Thirdly, the relevant authorities of the United Kingdom have been granting to oil companies inward processing authorisations for biodiesel imports, which facilitated the trading of non-UK origin biodiesel into the Union through the United Kingdom, blurring the statistics. Those practices have only recently come to an end

https://rtfa.org.uk/2024/07/23/uk-renewable-fuels-industry-calls-for-inward-processing-policy-to-be-made-more-transparent/ (last viewed on 18 November 2024).

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/agriculture/040324-uk-to-instate-biofuel-import-duties-after-halting-exemptions (last viewed on 18 November 2024).

.

(213) The Commission confirmed that, during the investigation period, Chinese UCO/waste-based biodiesel eased a quicker fulfilment of certain national mandates through lower physical volumes of biodiesel and attracted a premium in the Union market. Under the Renewable Energy Directives, Member States must reach a share of renewable energy sources in their energy consumption. To reach their overall target share, Member States have different targets/sub-mandates. In the transport sector, advanced biofuels, namely biodiesel made out of UCO and certain waste greases, can be double counted towards national targets. This double-counting limits the effect of increasing mandates on physical blending volumes as less (i.e. half) biofuel is needed to fulfil the mandate.

(214) The Commission noted that operators could not have achieved their target as quickly (as with Chinese biodiesel) via most of the imports from other third countries because they were crop-based. The Commission thus concluded that a meaningful comparison of biodiesel prices, volumes and market shares from different origins could only be made when acknowledging the product mix involved. Imports of crop-based biodiesel from other third countries did not displace Union biodiesel to the (double) extent of Chinese biodiesel and could not have caused injury to the extent of attenuating the causal link between dumped Chinese imports and the injurious situation of Union producers.

(215) In the absence of other comments on this section, the conclusions in recitals 368 to 372 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed bearing in mind the definitive table 12 above.

5.2.2.

Export performance of the Union industry

(216) In the absence of comments on this section, the conclusions in recitals 373 to 376 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.3.

Increases in cost/cost of production

(217) Following provisional disclosure, CCCMC submitted that the increase in cost of production and labour costs and the decrease in productivity were a potential cause of injury to the Union industry. The Commission rejected CCCMC’s claims because it was the price pressure exerted by Chinese biodiesel that prevented the Union industry from reflecting costs increases in prices. Therefore, the increase in costs did not attenuate the causal link found.

(218) In the absence of other comments on this section, the conclusions in recital 377 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.4.

Other factors

(219) CCCMC argued self-inflicted injury by Union producers in light of their inability to produce biodiesel attracting a double-counting premium.

(220) The Commission disagreed that Union producers were unable to produce biodiesel attracting a double-counting premium. The Commission recalled recital 57 of the provisional Regulation and that the price undercutting determination explained in section 4.4.2 of the provisional Regulation was made on a type-by-type basis and that Chinese biodiesel was compared with Union-made biodiesel made out of the same feedstocks attracting the same type of (double-counting) premium.

(221) CCCMC argued self-inflicted injury by Union producers due to heavy investments resulting in negative cashflow and a reduced return on investment.

(222) The point about the link between depressed profitability and investments by Union producers was addressed in recitals 197 to 201 above. The Commission recalled that Chinese imports depressed the profitability of Union producers. As shown in blank questionnaires intended for Union producers, profitability is the main driver in the formula used to establish the cashflow and return on investment figures. Recital 359 of the provisional Regulation noted that the significant investments in the last part of the period considered were projects foreseen since long and concerned only two companies.

(223) Excellence New Energy B.V. argued that, a target price of 1900–2200 EUR/tonne being much higher than import prices, the Union industry was unable to compete with any imports. The Commission clarified that the target price 1900–2200 EUR/tonne reflected only a very specific product mix against which Chinese models were compared and, thus, could not put into question the competitiveness of the Union industry. Imports in table 12 of the provisional Regulation concerned various product mixes, as highlighted in recital 370 of the provisional Regulation.

5.3.

Conclusion on causation

(224) In the absence of other comments on this section, the conclusions in recitals 378 to (380) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1. LEVEL OF MEASURES

6.1.

Injury margin

(225) 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 4 and therefore reflect the additional injury resulting from such increase in the determination of the injury margin.

(226) Based on data from the Surveillance 2 database, import volumes from China during the four weeks period of pre-disclosure were 58 % 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.

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

(228) Several Chinese parties contested the target profit of 11 % used to calculate the injury margin on the grounds that such profit margin was unrealistic and/or meaningless following market developments and other elements (e.g. regulatory changes, cost matters) since 2013, i.e. the year when the 11 % was ultimately established. The parties asked the Commission to look for a more recent/meaningful target profit, with CCCMC arguing that the profit should be achievable for the Union industry. Jiaao group expected a target profit lower than 11 % as, in its view, profit margins would decline over time in most industrial sectors because of market competition and technological progress. For Zhuoyue group, a new target profit should be found after the termination of anti-dumping investigations against Argentina and Indonesia in 2018 on the grounds that such terminations meant that the Union industry was not injured anymore. In its comments to the final disclosure, Zhuoyue group reiterated these comments on the grounds that it expected the level of profitability in recent years to be under normal conditions of competition.

(229) As noted in recital 384 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission could not establish a profit margin on the basis of the years prior to the increase of imports from China, as the Union industry suffered from an influx of dumped/subsidised imports for years, and therefore no period of time could qualify as referring to a normal competitive situation in the Union market. Consequently, the Commission resorted to the profit established for this kind of industry in previous investigations, including an investigation concluded in 2019. The basic profit was established at 11 %

The 11 % target profit was established in 2013 (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 2, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/1194/oj). This target profit was also deemed reasonable in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/244 of 11 February 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina (OJ L 40, 12.2.2019, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/244/oj).

. Jiaao group’s claim that profit margins would decline over time because of market competition and technological progress was unsubstantiated, namely as far as the biodiesel sector is concerned. Other than the 6 % set by Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, suggested by Jiaao group, no parties proposed a (more) reasonable basic profit in their view. The claims that 11 % was an unsuitable target profit were dismissed.

(230) A Chinese party claimed that the non-injurious price calculated in recital 387 of the provisional Regulation should not be based on the cost of production in table 8 of the provisional Regulation, which trend was deemed abnormal, and called for an adjustment for the purpose of calculating the non-injurious price (although without explaining how or by how much) to allegedly correct abnormalities such as high energy prices due to war. The Commission rejected the claims and recalled that table 8 of the provisional Regulation presents a cost of production for a wider mix than products against which imports were ultimately compared with.

(231) The related importer Excellence New Energy B.V. questioned the target price reached by the Commission on the grounds that the addition of a 11 % target profit plus compliance costs to the cost of production in table 8 of the provisional Regulation resulted in barely 1508 EUR/tonne. The Commission clarified that the cost of production in table 8 of the provisional Regulation reflects a wider mix that the cost of production against which Chinese models were compared.

(232) In the absence of comments, recital 389 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed. The final injury elimination level for the cooperating exporting producers and all other companies is as follows:

CompanyDefinitive injury margin (%)

EcoCeres Group:

ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd

EcoCeres Limited

16,4

Jiaao Group:

Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd

Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd

Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd

37,1

Zhuoyue Group:

Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co., Ltd

Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd

44,3Other cooperating companies32,6All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China44,3

6.2.

Conclusion on the level of measures

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

CompanyDefinitive anti-dumping duty (%)

EcoCeres Group:

ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd

EcoCeres Limited

10,0

Jiaao Group:

Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd

Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd

Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd

35,6

Zhuoyue Group:

Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co., Ltd

Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd

23,4Other cooperating companies21,7All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China35,6

1. UNION INTEREST

7.1.

Interest of the Union industry

(234) EBB (on behalf of its members) and Neste deemed measures in the interest of the Union industry.

(235) CCCMC argued that the Commission’s considerations under this section of the provisional Regulation were unconvincing as the competition with third country imports will remain and feedstocks to produce biodiesel will also be imported. The Commission noted that healthy competition in the market was welcomed and dismissed CCCMC’s claims.

(236) In the absence of other comments on this section, the considerations in recitals 392 to 394 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

7.2.

Interest of unrelated importers, traders and distributors

(237) In the absence of comments on this section, the considerations in recitals 395 to 398 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

7.3.

Interest of users, consumers and suppliers

(238) Quatra, a collector of UCO, alleged that the exclusion of SAF and UCO from measures would trigger imports of such goods into the Union and negatively affect Union sustainability efforts by deterring domestic sourcing of UCO/raw material. The Commission dismissed the claims as UCO was out of the scope of the investigation.

(239) Chane, a large biofuel storage provider in Europe which was also processing SAF, claimed that measures would threaten its sustainability ambitions and pose challenges to the supply chain dynamics, potentially affecting the availability and accessibility of renewable energy sources. Chane feared disruptions, inefficiency of storage facilities, potential underutilization, and negative financial implications. The Commission noted that, while measures might affect certain flows in the supply chain, availability of biodiesel was granted given the production capacity of Union producers and the numerous imports. Measures are not intended to prevent imports but to restore faire competition conditions on the biodiesel market in the Union.

(240) In the absence of other comments on this section, the considerations in recitals 399 to 400 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

7.4.

Other factors

(241) CCCMC contested the Commission’s statement in the provisional Regulation under this section that the Union industry had enough capacity to satisfy demand on the grounds that the Union industry was not doing well in the investigation period and of bad prospects in rapeseed production. The Commission disagreed considering its findings about spare capacity at the level of sampled Union producers, its overall findings regarding the Union industry and the multiple feedstocks biodiesel can be made of.

(242) CCCMC contested the Commission’s statement in recital 402 of the provisional Regulation that the imposition of measures would have a positive effect on sustainability and GHG

Greenhouse gas.

emissions. The Commission noted the role that good farming practices put forward by some Union producers has on sequestration of carbon in soil

For the role of soil in carbon sequestration, see namely https://4p1000.org/discover/?lang=en.

and dismissed CCCMC’s claims.

(243) Following provisional disclosure, the related importer Excellence New Energy B.V. contested prohibitive duties as counterproductive to broader decarbonization goals and, like CCCMC, questioned whether anti-dumping measures were appropriate in a broader context of international action fighting climate change. CCCMC added that environmental policy uncertainty inhibited corporate green investments and green innovation and that measures would affect biodiesel of a type that the EU legislator favoured the most.

(244) The Commission noted that the level of the duties was not prohibitive and that measures are not intended to prevent imports but to restore fair competition conditions on the biodiesel market in the Union. The Commission’s commitment to combat climate change cannot be put into question by the imposition of anti-dumping measures when they are legally justified. The findings were clear about the justified need to restore a level playing in the Union. It was noted that closures of Union biodiesel manufacturers would increase dependency on biodiesel from third countries in distant locations, which is counterproductive in terms of reducing the Union’s carbon footprint. The Commission dismissed Excellence New Energy B.V.’s and CCCMC’s claims.

(245) Excellence New Energy B.V. alleged disruptions in terminals and ports if measures were imposed. The claim, unsubstantiated, was rejected.

7.5.

Conclusion on Union interest

(246) In the absence of other comments on Union interest, the conclusion in recitals 404 to 405 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

1. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

8.1.

Definitive measures

(247) 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.

(248) 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:

CompanyDumping margin (%)Injury margin (%)Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)

EcoCeres Group:

ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd

EcoCeres Limited

10,016,410,0

Jiaao Group:

Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd

Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd

Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd

35,637,135,6

Zhuoyue Group:

Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co., Ltd

Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd

23,444,323,4Other cooperating companies21,732,621,7All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China35,644,335,6

(249) EBB stated that the usage of the RED mass balance system by some operators amounted to circumvention of the anti-dumping duties on Chinese biodiesel. EBB noted that traders could swap the proof of sustainability certificates between EU and non-EU products by shipping in T1 (i.e. before customs-clearance) non-EU biodiesel which proof of sustainability would be sold in the Union (namely in the case of materials that count twice towards EU renewable targets) and sending the physical biodiesel outside the Union. The Commission disagreed that those activities could be considered as circumvention practices to be tackled in the framework of this investigation.

(250) Neste and EBB stated that the exclusion of HEFA-SPK / blended SAF from the measures would increase the risk of circumvention of the anti-dumping measures on Chinese biodiesel and undermine the remedial effect of the measures. In this respect, Neste pointed at the lack of dedicated separate CN codes for most renewable fuels and to the fact that HEFA-SPK and HVO can fall under the same commodity code when they meet the same distillation specifications. EBB argued that distinguishing SAF and HVO at the border was difficult.

(251) In their comments following final disclosure, Neste and EBB reiterated the core of the comments summarised in the recital above. EBB alleged that Chinese industry would quickly switch from HVO to SAF, thus avoid the payment of anti-dumping duties on HVO. EcoCeres group disagreed that the conversion to SAF could be quickly done. EBB called for the Commission to adopt a pro-active approach as regards a new export tax mechanism on Chinese UCO, alleged to be a sort of support to absorb the anti-dumping duties and also a countervailable subsidy that would decrease Chinese export prices of FAME, HVO and SAF to the Union in the near future. EBB specifically called for the creation of new SAF-specific TARIC codes for monitoring purposes, for a careful monitoring of the import price of biodiesel into the Union and also for an ex-officio investigation to review the dumping margins of the present investigation. EcoCeres group recalled the tools already in place to monitor biofuels movements, namely the Commission’s Union Database for Biofuels, operational since 2024.

(252) The Commission took note of the matters pointed out by the parties and committed to monitor biodiesel and SAF flows after the imposition of anti-dumping measures on Chinese biodiesel, as defined in Article 1 of this Regulation. Therefore, separate TARIC codes were established for sustainable aviation fuels as defined in Article 1 of this Regulation and originating in the People’s Republic of China for monitoring purpose.

(253) CCCMC questioned the form of the measures. The Commission dismissed CCCMC’s claim, which was unsubstantiated.

(254) 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.

(255) 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

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

. 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.

(256) 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.

(257) 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.

(258) 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 rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(259) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other imports originating in 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.

(260) Exporting producers that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period should be able to request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period; (ii) it is not related to an exporting producer that did so; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

8.2.

Definitive collection of the provisional duties

(261) 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 at the levels established in the provisional Regulation and up to the level established under the present Regulation.

1. FINAL PROVISION

(262) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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).

, 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.

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoils obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, commonly known as biodiesel, in pure form or as included in a blend, currently falling under CN codes ex15162098 (TARIC codes 1516209821, 1516209822, 1516209823, 1516209829, 1516209831, 1516209832 and 1516209839), ex15180091 (TARIC codes 1518009121, 1518009122, 1518009123, 1518009129, 1518009131, 1518009132 and 1518009139), ex15180095 (TARIC code 1518009510, 1518009511 and 1518009519), ex15180099 (TARIC codes 1518009921, 1518009922, 1518009923, 1518009929, 1518009931, 1518009932 and 1518009939), ex27101942 (TARIC codes 2710194221, 2710194222, 2710194223, 2710194229, 2710194231, 2710194232 and 2710194239), ex27101944 (TARIC codes 2710194421, 2710194422, 2710194423, 2710194429, 2710194431, 2710194432 and 2710194439), ex27101946 (TARIC codes 2710194621, 2710194622, 2710194623, 2710194629, 2710194631, 2710194632 and 2710194639), ex27101947 (TARIC codes 2710194721, 2710194722, 2710194723, 2710194729, 2710194731, 2710194732 and 2710194739), 27102011, 27102016, ex38249992 (TARIC codes 3824999210, 3824999211, 3824999213, 3824999214, 3824999215, 3824999216, and 3824999219), 38260010 and ex38260090

As currently defined in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2522 of 23 September 2024 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L, 2024/2522 31.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2522/oj). The product coverage is determined in combining the product description in Article 1(1) and the product description of the corresponding CN and TARIC codes taken together.

(TARIC codes 3826009011, 3826009012, 3826009013, 3826009019, 3826009031, 3826009032 and 3826009039), excluding sustainable aviation fuels meeting the requirements of ASTM7566-22 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons, currently falling under CN codes ex27101942 (TARIC additional code 89FT), ex27101944 (TARIC additional code 89FT), ex27101946 (TARIC additional code 89FT), ex27101947 (TARIC additional code 89FT), ex27102011 (TARIC additional code 89FT) and ex27102016 (TARIC additional code 89FT), and originating in the People’s Republic of China.

1. The rates 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:

CompanyDefinitive anti-dumping duty (%)TARIC additional code

EcoCeres Group:

ECO Biochemical Technology (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd

EcoCeres Limited

10,089ED

Jiaao Group:

Zhejiang EastRiver Energy S&T Co., Ltd

Zhejiang Jiaao Enproenergy Co., Ltd

Jiaao International Trading (SINGAPORE) PTE. Ltd

35,689EE

Zhuoyue Group:

Longyan Zhuoyue New Energy Co., Ltd

Xiamen Zhuoyue Biomass Energy Co., Ltd

23,489EFOther cooperating companies listed in the Annex21,7All other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China35,6C999

1. 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 tonnes) of biodiesel sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in the People’s Republic of China. 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.

1. 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) 2024/2163 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People’s Republic of China shall be definitively collected at the levels established in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2163 if below the definitive rates. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.