Anti-Dumping Levy on Aluminum Profiles from China: Will Israeli Real Estate Prices Continue to Rise?

On October 19, 2025, the Competition Commissioner published her detailed position regarding  the proposed anti-dumping levy on imports of aluminum profiles from China. This position expresses strong opposition to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Trade Levies to impose high anti-dumping levies on aluminum imports from China.

Background: Preliminary Decision on a Temporary Guarantee

Several local aluminum manufacturers operate in Israel, alongside dozens of importers of various sizes. The issue first arose in May 2025, when the Commissioner of Trade Levies published a preliminary decision about the need to issue a temporary guarantee on imports of aluminum profiles from China. The date to collect the guarantee was postponed to the end of September 2025.

Aluminum profiles, imported to Israel mainly from China, are an important and central  material in the construction industry, and directly impact construction costs for apartments and projects.

The Competition Commissioner’s authority to submit her position to the Minister of Economy and Industry, the Minister of Finance, and the Commissioner of Trade Levies derives from Government Decision No. 823, which addresses competition and cost of living considerations when deciding whether to  impose trade levies. Per this decision, the Competition Commissioner may submit to the Minister of Economy an analysis of the competitive landscape of the industry under investigation.

Highlights of the Competition Authority’s Position

Legal Framework

The Competition Authority reiterates that under the Trade Levies and Safeguard Measures Law an anti-dumping levy may be imposed only if three cumulative conditions are met: dumped imports exist in the market (the export prices are lower than the selling prices in the country of origin), a local industry is suffering severe damage, and a causal connection exists between the two.

According to the Competition Authority, the purpose of imposing anti-dumping levies is to protect a local industry in particular situations. But it also stresses the other side of the coin. If the conditions do not actually exist, imposing a levy is tantamount to imposing a tax on all goods, which will ultimately roll down to the public and harm competition. Raising import prices will harm importers, trigger price hikes among local manufacturers, reduce product variety, and lower overall output in the market.

Doubts Regarding Damage to Israel’s Construction Industry

The Competition Authority harshly criticized the Commissioner of Trade Levies’ determinations of damage to the local industry.

1. The Commissioner of Trade Levies claimed “price increase prevention,” arguing that local companies raised their selling prices at rates lower than the price hikes on raw materials. The Competition Authority disputed this, noting that raw materials account for only a portion of the total cost. Therefore, an increase in the price of a raw material should cause a proportional (minor) increase in the final price. The fact that local companies did not raise their final prices at the same rate as the rise in raw material costs does not necessarily attest to any suppressed price increases.
2. The Commissioner of Trade Levies claimed that dumped imports caused pricing pressure, a phenomenon where cheap imports force prices down. The Competition Authority refuted this, noting that prices for all types of products are rising.
3. During the investigation, two existing local manufacturers expanded their production capacity by purchasing new aluminum presses, and a new competitor entered the market and established a manufacturing plant. This signals local supply is increasing, casting substantial doubt on claims of industry damage.

Lack of a Causal Connection Between Industry Damage and Imports

According to the Competition Authority, even if the local industry suffered some damage, the Commissioner of Trade Levies did not demonstrate any causal connection between the damage and imports from China. Contrary to the Commissioner of Trade Levies’ claim that demand is stable or even rising, the Competition Authority showed that the volume of aluminum purchases in recent years actually decreased by 15.5%.

The Competition Authority further argued that, under these circumstances, any damage to the local industry—if it exists at all, or at least a significant portion of it—may actually derive from decreased demand rather than dumped imports. The Competition Authority further noted that local companies’ market share of total sales has remained relatively stable over the years, with no significant decline in sales. In other words, it is impossible to determine if imports caused a shift in demand from local manufacturers to importers.

The Competition Authority also criticized the Commissioner of Trade Levies’ assertion that, absent any other apparent reason, damage to the local industry alongside rising imports from China establishes a causal connection between the two. According to the Competition Authority, without proof of a causal connection, the prerequisite for imposing an anti-dumping levy has not been met. Moreover, the general decline in demand actually increases the likelihood no causal connection exists.

Local Manufacturing Capacity and Competition

The Competition Authority also analyzed if the local industry, coupled with imports from countries other than China, could meet total local demand. If no, then imposing the anti-dumping levy would cause significant harm to competition and consumers.

Data collected by the Competition Authority indicate that even if imports from China decrease, local manufacturing combined with imports from other countries could meet domestic demand if they fully utilize their manufacturing capacities. In this context, the Competition Authority noted, from a competitive perspective, the importance of robust competition between manufacturers and importers from other countries.

Implications of the Competition Authority’s Position

The Competition Authority’s position is compelling and may significantly influence the final decision of the Minister of Economy and the Minister of Finance. The fact they have repeatedly postponed the imposition of temporary guarantees on importers attests to regulatory uncertainty.

If the levy is imposed, we can expect price hikes on aluminum profiles, which will directly impact construction costs. Aluminum profiles constitute a significant input in the construction of various buildings, both commercial and residential, and higher costs will trigger higher real estate prices, which are already quite costly. Even modest increases in construction input costs could significantly pass down to consumers. Another potential consequence could be delays in the delivery of apartments and commercial buildings, due to concerns the local market is unable to meet existing demand.

Thus, it is extremely important importers and exporters, as well as local and foreign manufacturers, familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Trade Levies and Safeguard Measures Law, and examine how to use them strategically to serve their economic interests.

***

Prof. Amichai Cohen is a special counsel on international law practice at the firm.

Adv. Gal Rozent is a Partner and Head of the Antitrust and Competition Department.

Dr. Ran Karmi is an associate in the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Department.