Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2081 of 17 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel track shoes 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) On 23 August 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of steel track shoes (‘STS’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘the PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 12 July 2024 by Duferco Travi e Profilati S.p.A. (‘Duferco’ or ‘the complainant’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of STS 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 STS originating in the PRC subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2721 of 24 October 2024 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 25 March 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry (‘pre-disclosure’). Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days. No comments were received on the accuracy of the calculations. Two interested parties, Liebherr-Werk Ehingen GmbH (‘Liebherr’), an importer of steel track shoes, and Italtractor ITM S.p.A. (‘Italtractor’), a producer in the Union and an importer of STS, provided comments on matters others than the accuracy of the calculation. These comments concerned the product scope of the investigation and are addressed further below in recitals 26 and following.

(5) On 22 April 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of STS originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/780 of 16 April 2025 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(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 importers Liebherr, Linser Industrie Service GmbH (‘Linser’), and Italtractor, as well as exporters AsiaTrak (Tianjin) Ltd. and Caterpillar Undercarriage (Xuzhou) Co. Ltd., which are both part of the Caterpillar Group, USCO SpA (‘USCO’), an importer of STS, and Astrak Group consisting of five importers in the Union (‘Astrak’) filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation. The importer of steel track shoes mentioned in recital 7, Verhoeven Grondverzetmachines B.V. (‘Verhoeven’), also provided comments.

(7) Following provisional disclosure, Verhoeven took issue that in the complaint, Duferco identified itself as the sole representative of the Union industry and noted that it has been involved in the importation of STS for many years but had not been contacted by the complainant prior of filing the complaint.

(8) The Union industry within the meaning of Article 4 of the basic Regulation shall be interpreted as referring to the Union producers as a whole of the like products or a major proportion thereof. Importers, therefore, do not form part of the Union industry. In addition, the complainant Union industry is under no obligation to inform any of the interested parties of the existence of such complaint, which is made available to all interested parties at the day of the initiation of the investigation.

(9) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with two importers of STS, Liebherr and Verhoeven.

(10) 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.

(11) 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 STS originating in the PRC (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(12) Comments following final disclosure were received on 25 July 2025.

(13) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. A hearing took place with the importer Astrak.

(14) Following provisional disclosure, Verhoeven, an unrelated importer, claimed that its Chinese supplier of STS had not been approached by the Commission in order to participate in the investigation, despite its willingness to cooperate. Moreover, Verhoeven claimed that this producer had submitted documentation but was never formally involved as an interested party in the active investigation phase. On the other hand, according to Verhoeven, three other parties were approached but subsequently failed to cooperate.

(15) The Commission noted that Verhoeven did not identify any of the companies it was referring to and therefore the Commission was not able to assess these claims. The Commission noted that it informed all known exporting producers about the initiation of a new investigation based on the details provided by the complainant. Before initiation, the Commission also requested the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’) to provide the details of any additional producers of STS in China. However, the GOC did not provide the details of any additional producer. The Notice of Initiation invited all interested parties to cooperate and to provide the Commission with information necessary for the investigation. All Chinese exporting producers of STS that came forward following the publication of the Notice of Initiation were accepted as interested parties. The information provided by the exporting producers in the sampling stage were duly taken into consideration and formed the basis for the selection of the sample of exporting producers. None of the non-sampled exporting producers requested individual examination. Therefore, this claim was rejected.

(16) Astrak claimed that it was not mentioned in the complaint as known importer/user and was not notified of the initiation of the investigation and had therefore no opportunity to cooperate from the start of the investigation.

(17) As mentioned in recital 4 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission invited all interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In this regard, it is irrelevant whether the company was mentioned in the complaint or not and therefore this claim was rejected.

(18) In the absence of further comments on the sampling of Union producers, unrelated importers, and exporting producers after the imposition of provisional measures, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 6 to 11 of the provisional Regulation.

(19) Following provisional disclosure, the Caterpillar Group claimed that the Chinese exporting producers had practical difficulties replying to the questionnaire, because they supplied STS to other companies in China, including the Caterpillar Group, which in turn produced track groups and full track groups. Consequently, such Chinese exporting producers were unable to provide full details in relation to export prices and volumes. The Caterpillar Group based these allegations on replies filed by certain Chinese exporting producers in response to follow-up questions by the Commission regarding the information provided in the sampling forms (5). In these replies, the Chinese exporting producers concerned informed the Commission that they were unable to determine whether the STS sold domestically were re-exported to the Union market.

(20) However, none of the Chinese exporting producers of STS raised with the Commission any practical difficulties in replying to the questionnaire as the reason behind their non-cooperation. Caterpillar drew inferences from different pieces of information in the open file which were taken out of context. The Commission disagreed with the Caterpillar Group and considered that the claimed practical difficulties in replying to the questionnaire were unsubstantiated. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(21) In the absence of any other comments in this regard, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 12 to 22 of the provisional Regulation.

(22) In the absence of comments concerning the investigation period (‘IP’) and the period considered, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital 23 of the provisional Regulation.

(23) Following the provisional disclosure, Komatsu Machinery Manufacturing (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (‘Komatsu’) submitted that it did not purchase all the STS from China, but also from Japan, and requested to clarify whether this affected the rejection of the individual examination request.

(24) The Commission considered that the additional element did not affect the conclusion that the request for individual examination could not be granted.

(25) In the absence of any other comments in this regard, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation.

(26) Following provisional disclosure and several parties came forward requesting the Commission to exclude certain product types from the scope of the current investigation.

(27) Liebherr, an importer and user of a specific type of cast STS came forward requesting to exclude these products from the scope, on the grounds that they show significant differences in physical and technical characteristics and have different end-uses as compared to the products produced by the Union industry and were not competing with the latter. They were also produced using completely different production processes.

(28) This party submitted that the product imported by it is used in mining excavators and crawler cranes that need specific floor plates (steel track shoes) made from cast steel, rather than the track shoes produced by the complainant Union producer, which are made from rolled steel profiles. Cast STS imported by Liebherr are specifically designed to withhold the high load of crawler cranes and mining excavators and are therefore significantly larger and heavier compared to the STS produced by the Union industry. Cast STS imported by Liebherr, and the product produced by the Union industry would therefore not be interchangeable.

(29) The complainant opposed to the exclusion of cast STS, first, on the grounds that the request was submitted outside the deadline to comment on the product scope of the investigation, as set out in the Notice of Initiation, and that the company was not cooperating in the investigation prior to submitting its request. Referring to previous practice, they considered such delayed request should not be accepted by the Commission, as this would allow parties to selectively engage in an investigation which would undermine the fairness and equal treatment of the interested parties. The complainant also claimed that the information provided was inconsistent.

(30) Furthermore, the complainant argued that the claim of Liebherr was not supported by any objective and verifiable evidence. In particular, they contested the relevance of a technical opinion of TÜV SÜD Autoservice GmbH provided by Liebherr and claimed that it did not show that the product imported by Liebherr is functionally or commercially distinct from the STS produced and sold by the complainant Union producer.

(31) On substance, the complainant argued that the product type imported by Liebherr fell within the product definition of the Notice of Initiation and that it had the same basic technical and physical characteristics and basic end-uses as the product under investigation, that is, enabling the movement and support of tracked vehicles (i.e., provide structural support and facilitate the movement of tracked vehicles). The complainant claimed that the products imported by Liebherr had only minor differences in dimension and production method but were essentially produced in the same industrial framework (i.e., the earth moving machinery sector) and were thus functionally interchangeable with the product produced in the Union. The fact that the STS imported by Liebherr were tailor made would be irrelevant, unless the differences introduced would alter the products’ essential identity. Moreover, a perfect two-way substitutability would not be required to consider that two products fall within the same product scope when they share fundamental technical characteristics and are produced within the same industrial framework. To support these arguments the complainant referred to case law (6) and a previous investigation concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in the PRC (7).

(32) The complainant further argued that STS are always manufactured and assembled for use on a specific earth-moving machine. Duferco also explained that they would consistently collect and store all relevant technical specifications for each type of earth-moving machines; and in order to remain competitive adapt their production process and finishing operations to customise the STS produced. This would allow the company to be able to produce several thousand distinct configurations of STS designed to be compatible with virtually all earth-moving machinery currently in use across the Union. They also claimed that the two other Union producers would have the technological capability, industrial infrastructure and expertise necessary to produce casted STS that would be functionally equivalent to those for which the exclusion had been requested.

(33) Furthermore, the complainant argued that the mere fact that cast STS were produced using a different production process would not be a valid basis to exclude them from the product scope, unless such process would result in a substantial difference in the products, which would, however, not be the case here. In this regard, the complainant referred to the ruling of the General Court in Brosmann (8). While the complainant recognised that the different production processes may influence certain design possibilities or pricing structures of the STS produced, those distinctions would only be relevant when they result in a product that is functionally or commercially distinct. However, in the present case, the physical and technical differences would be of a minor nature without substantially putting into question that they were still STS designed for integration in track chains, which is the defining feature of the product under investigation.

(34) Finally, the complainant, referring to previous practice (9), claimed that the fact that the Union industry was not producing certain product types is not a valid reason to exclude these product types from the product scope, as such non-production might itself be a consequence of injurious dumping. In any event, they claimed that Italtractor, one of the Union producers, would be producing cast STS in the Union.

(35) The Commission considered that while the request to exclude certain cast STS came outside the deadline set out in the Notice of Initiation, it was provided prior to the pre-disclosure within the meaning of Article 19a of the basic Regulation. As acknowledged by the Commission in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, although the Commission was unable to analyse this request in time for the imposition of provisional measures, it would nonetheless further investigate this claim and take a decision at the definitive stage of the investigation. Indeed, the Commission considered that in this specific case, there was sufficient time to analyse the request, which is in line with established practice, and therefore the claim of the complainant in this regard was rejected.

(36) On substance, the investigation has shown that, despite falling within the current product description, the cast STS as imported by Liebherr have significant physical and technical differences as compared to the product produced by the complainant Union producer and are used in different specific applications. In particular, in comparison to the forging/rolling process, the casting process provides significantly higher design flexibility, which allows for a different stress distribution and optimization. Consequently, cast STS offer mechanical properties that cannot always be achieved through forging, particularly where weight distribution, internal cavities, and complex stress-bearing geometries are critical. This is the case for heavy-duty applications such as cranes lifting heavy loads. By contrast, the complainant’s products are produced by cutting forged/rolled steel profiles to length, and therefore have a much simpler and more uniform structure. Moreover, a key characteristic of the complainant’s products is the existence of grousers, which the products imported by Liebherr lack, as they are not relevant for their specific uses.

(37) The products produced by the Union industry were considered to have different key technical and physical characteristics imported by Liebherr.

(38) In addition, in contrast to what was claimed by the complainant, the investigation revealed that this type of STS is currently not produced and cannot be produced by the Union industry in the near future. As far as the complainant is concerned, this would require heavy investments that are very unlikely to be carried out in the short or medium term. Also, the complainant did not claim that it would be able to produce this type of STS, nor did it provide any evidence in this regard. As such, there was no evidence in the investigation file that the complainant had the intention to produce this type of product in the near future. In the case of Italtractor, a Union producer that did not support the complaint, the investigation has shown that while it produced some type of cast STS, the type produced by it was not in competition with products produced by the Chinese exporting producers (such as the product imported by Liebherr). As above, the investigation file did not reveal any information or evidence that Italtractor would be able to produce this type of product and is likely to produce it in the near future. The same was true for the third Union producer that provided a statement clarifying that, contrary to what the complainant claimed, it does not currently possess casting technology for the production of cast steel track shoes. Therefore, it was not able to produce the product type imported by Liebherr.