Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1723 of 6 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels, 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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 9 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of sweetcorn originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the PRC’ or China) 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 25 October 2024 by the Association Européenne des Transformateurs de Maïs Doux (AETMD) (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels 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.

(3) The Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/309 of 14 February 2025 (‘the registration Regulation’) (3).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers, and the Chinese authorities, and known importers and traders about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(5) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. Following the initiation, a hearing took place with the European Federation of the Trade in Dried Fruit, Edible Nuts, processed fruit & vegetables and processed fishery products (‘FRUCOM’) and its national member associations Waren-Verein der Hamburger Börse e.V. (‘Waren-Verein’) and Nederlandse Vereniging voor de Handel in Gedroogde Zuidvruchten, Specerijen en Aanverwante Artikelen (‘NZV’), as well as representatives of several importing members.

(6) The Commission received comments on initiation from the China Chamber of Commerce of Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-Products (‘CFNA’) and from Waren-Verein.

(7) The CFNA criticised that the investigation period of the complaint was not updated close to the submission date. The association argued that it may present a different injury picture as when compared to the investigation period of the investigation, due to significant changes in the EU market as from the second quarter of 2024 and until the end of 2024. The CFNA further considered that Thailand and the PRC are the only major producers and exporters of sweetcorn and that Thai market shares could be taken over by imports from the PRC, if imports from Thailand are restricted by anti-dumping measures. Additionally, the CFNA argued that the increase in imports from the PRC in 2022 was possibly caused by unforeseen developments, such as (1) natural disasters and floods in Thailand that reduced the output of corn and sufficient supply; (2) a bad harvest in Europe due to dry climate conditions, in particular in France; and (3) the war in Ukraine that might have increased energy costs of sweetcorn producers and reduced sweetcorn supply. The CFNA further considered that in 2022, the pattern in export sales from the PRC was changed due to a large order from Lidl. It considered that the bad harvest in Europe may have affected the sweetcorn supply in Europe and purchasers such as Lidl might have stockpiled to avoid shortage of supply.

(8) The Commission reminds the CFNA that the investigation period was defined in line with Article 6 of the basic Regulation, covering a period of no less than six months immediately prior the initiation of proceedings. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(9) With regards to the claim that the increased market share of imports from the PRC was due to the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports from Thailand, the Commission reminds CFNA that these measures have been in place since 2009. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(10) The CFNA did not provide any supporting evidence related to the claim that the change in exports was due only to a major order of the retailer Lidl. The claim was therefore rejected.

(11) The CFNA also argued that the complaint did not demonstrate the material injury of the Union industry and stated that the increased imports from the PRC did not have any negative impact on the development of the complainant in terms of production, capacity, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales prices.

(12) According to the Commission’s assessment of the information provided in the complaint, there was sufficient evidence pointing to material injury that justified the initiation of the investigation. The claim was therefore rejected.

(13) The CFNA further claimed that imports from the PRC are not the sole cause of the injury to the complainant and referred to the factors described in recital 6. It recalled the anti-dumping investigation concerning soy protein imports originating in the PRC (4), where the Commission found that the coincidence of a price increase with the poor financial performance of the Union industry indicated the volatility of the raw material market and was a major cause of injury suffered by the Union industry, which broke the causal link between the Chinese imports and material injury suffered by the Union industry. The CFNA claimed a similar situation for this investigation.

(14) In the Commission’s view, none of the other possible explanations mentioned above disprove the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence in the complaint concerning the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry which justified the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.

(15) Waren-Verein requested to extend the period considered to assess the effect of the poor crops for 2020. It requested to consider also other one-off effects, such as freight and currency conditions that were favorable for purchase decisions.

(16) The complaint analysed the positive causal link between the dumped imports from the PRC and the material injury of the Union industry by analysing the trends of import volumes, the Union sales prices during the period considered, and the main injury indicators over the period considered. A positive link could be demonstrated, while showing that no other factors attenuated the causal link. At this stage, the Commission considered the evidence present in the complaint concerning causality as reasonable and refers to section 5 below on causation. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(17) Finally, the CFNA requested the Commission to apply the lesser duty rule pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. It argued that the complaint failed to present specific evidence on the existence of raw material distortions.

(18) The complainant provided credible and relevant evidence that all the legal requirements to waive the lesser duty rule were met at initiation, including evidence on distortions on the steel market in the PRC that could affect the price of steel cans. At this stage, the Commission considered the evidence present in the complaint concerning raw material distortions as reasonable. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(19) Waren-Verein criticised the date chosen for the initiation of the proceeding, which restricted the possibility of interested parties to participate in the investigation.

(20) The Commission services have no impact on the Union industry’s decision on when they lodge a complaint. Once a complaint is lodged, the Commission is legally obliged to take a decision on the case and inform the parties concerned within 45 days, in accordance with Article 5(9) of the basic Regulation, either by the publication of a notice in the Official Journal in case of initiation of an investigation or by informing the Union industry in case of a rejection of the complaint.

(21) With regards to the selection of the sample of exporting producers, Waren-Verein requested to select exporters based on a representative basis.

(22) The Commission highlighted that in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the selection of the sample should be statistically valid on the basis of information available at the time of the selection or be based on the largest representative volume of production, sales or exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available.

(23) Waren-Verein requested to limit the selection of the product covered by the investigation to TARIC code 2005 80 00 , while TARIC code 2001 90 30 10 should not be included.

(24) The Commission noted that no further evidence was provided to justify the request of product exclusion. The claim was therefore rejected.

(25) Waren-Verein argued the negative impact of freight and exchange rates on product prices and requested to consider them during the calculation of the normal value. Moreover, Waren-Verein questioned the comparability of prices of products falling within the product description but varying in size, end-consumers, packaging or delivery conditions.

(26) With regards to the questions raised on price comparability, the Commission reassured Waren-Verein that, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, the comparison between export prices and the normal value is made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability. If necessary, adjustments can be made to account for differences on physical characteristics, transport and freight conditions, packing, currency conversion and other factors.

(27) Waren-Verein requested to consider the interests of consumers and traders during the investigation. The association claimed that sweetcorn prices will likely increase to the disadvantage of consumers, in case anti-dumping duties will be imposed. Considering future poor crops and other unforeseen events in the EU affecting imports, the association considered that no measures should be imposed. It also claimed that EU sweetcorn producers are economically strong enough and do not need to be protected by anti-dumping measures.

(28) The Commission reminds Waren-Verein that the assessment of the Union interest is carried out as part of the investigation and not at complaint stage. The views of all parties are therefore assessed in section 7 of this regulation.

(29) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. Sampling of Union producers

(30) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of the estimated volume of production and sales of the like product in the EU during the investigation period. This sample consisted of two Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than [29 – 38] % of the estimated total volume of production and more than [39 – 48] % of the estimated total sales in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments on the sample were received. The sample of the Union industry was therefore confirmed. Sampling of unrelated importers

(31) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(32) Six unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two unrelated importers on the basis of the largest import volume of the product concerned in the Union. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known importers concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. One of the sampled importers informed the Commission it no longer wished to cooperate and would not provide a questionnaire reply. The Commission therefore decided to replace this importer with another importer. Interested parties were informed of the change accordingly. No comments were received on the adjusted sample. Sampling of exporting producers

(33) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Chinese mission to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(34) Twenty-three companies in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Two of these companies were related, one of which was not an exporting producer. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were received on the selection of the sample and the Commission confirmed the sample.

(35) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(36) Furthermore, the complainant provided in the complaint sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in China regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to China. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the GOC.

(37) The Commission sent questionnaires to the complainant, Union producers, exporting producers, and the known importers. The same questionnaires were made available online (5) on the day of initiation.

(39) In addition, the Commission verified the macro-questionnaire submitted by the complainant AETMD in Paris, France.

(40) The Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC as described at section 3.2.1 below.

(41) A partial application of Article 18 was made to the Sunflower Group for issues relating to information supplied in respect of the calculation of the CIF prices and credit costs relevant to the findings on export prices as described at section 3.3 below.

(42) A partial application of Article 18 was made to the Tongfa Group also for issues relating to information supplied in respect of the calculation of the CIF prices relevant to the findings on export prices as described in section 3.4 below. In addition, Article 18 was also applied to determine labour hours input to the calculation of labour as a factor of production as described at section 3.2.3.1 below.

(43) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘the investigation period’). 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’).

(44) The product under investigation is sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen and sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006 , currently falling under CN codes ex 2001 90 30 (TARIC code 2001 90 30 10) and ex 2005 80 00 (TARIC code 2005 80 00 10 (‘the product under investigation’).

(45) Sweetcorn is used for human consumption. The product is usually presented in a canned format, but also in glasses, tetra packs or pouches.

(46) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’).

(48) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(49) In view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC, the Commission considered it appropriate to initiate the investigation with regard to the exporting producers from this country having regard to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(50) Consequently, in order to collect the necessary data for the eventual application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission invited all exporting producers in the PRC to provide information regarding the inputs used for producing certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels (sweetcorn). Fourteen exporting producers submitted the relevant information.

(51) In order to obtain the information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.