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

• (141) The Commission underlined that the current anti-dumping duties are not applicable to assembled products, but only on the STS incorporated into assembled products. The Commission disagrees with Caterpillar Group’s argument that in the Steel Wind Towers investigation the Commission assessed dumping and injury for the assembled product after examining the costs of production of all the components in detail while in the present case, by contrast, it is proposed to impose a duty on assembled products without taking into account the costs of production of all other components in addition to the sole dutiable component (here, STS). The product scope of the Steel Wind Tower investigation was limited to steel wind towers, whether assembled or not, but, more importantly, also when imported as part of a wind turbine. In other words, the wind turbine is a further assembled product incorporating a steel wind tower. Upon import into the Union of an assembled wind turbine, the anti-dumping duty concerning steel wind towers will apply to the wind turbine only as regards the value of the steel wind tower incorporated in the wind turbine, based on the value declared in the commercial invoice that is presented to the Member States’ customs authorities ¹⁷. Moreover, it is incorrect to state that, in the Steel Wind Tower investigation, the Commission assessed dumping and injury for an assembled product incorporating the steel wind tower (i.e., the wind turbine) and that it examined the costs of production of all the components of such wind turbine. It is clear from the Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of steel wind towers from the PRC that the assessment was limited to the steel wind towers themselves and not wind turbines overall ¹⁸.

• (142) Similarly, in the present investigation, the Commission investigated STS, which can be further assembled into larger components such as track groups and full track groups. As such, following the findings of its investigation, it proposes to impose anti-dumping duties on STS. To the extent that such STS are incorporated in a further assembled product such as track groups and full track groups, the anti-dumping duty concerning STS will apply to the value of such incorporated STS (and not to the (full) track group). Furthermore, the Commission considered that the above should also address Caterpillar Group’s claims concerning the difference between (full) track groups and standalone STS. In particular, such differences are not relevant in the present case considering the anti-dumping duty is not applied to the track groups and full track groups as a whole, but only to the extent of the value of the STS incorporated in such products, as explained above. In light of the foregoing, these claims were rejected.

• (143) With regard to the Kirovo judgement and the WTO Panel Report on EC – Salmon, the Commission noted that Caterpillar Group did not explain why the relevant findings would be applicable in a completely different legal and factual context. The Commission upheld its conclusion of the provisional Regulation that both references are irrelevant to the investigation and the claims were rejected.

• (144) The Commission established the threshold on the lowest percentage that was reported by interested parties, including Caterpillar Group as an average calculation. Moreover, the Caterpillar Group never fully cooperated to an extent that would allow the Commission to verify the data it is relying on in its comments. This percentage was considered as representative and used to ensure the effectiveness of the measure. Considering that the companies did not provide any additional substantive evidence, the claim was rejected.

8.2.   Definitive collection of the provisional duties

• (145) 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.

8.3.   Retroactivity

• (146) As mentioned in section in recital 3, the Commission made imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.

• (147) During the definitive stage of the investigation, the data collected in the context of the registration was assessed. The Commission analysed whether the criteria under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation were met for the retroactive collection of definitive duties.

• (148) The Commission’s analysis showed no further substantial rise in imports in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period, as prescribed by Article 10(4)(d) of the basic Regulation. For this analysis, the Commission compared the monthly average import volumes during the investigation period with the monthly average import volumes during the period from the month following the initiation of this investigation (i.e., September 2024) until the last full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures (i.e., March 2025). The comparison shows a significant decrease (approximately 80 %) in the average monthly imports between the two periods.

• (149) Consequently, the Commission concluded that the conditions for retroactive collection of the duties were not met.

• (150) Following provisional disclosure, Verhoeven requested that duties should not be collected retroactively because it would mean an extraordinary and irreparable financial burden to its company. Given the conclusions set out in the above recital, i.e. that the conditions for retroactive collection of the duties were not met, this claim was redundant.

9. FINAL PROVISION

• (151) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council ¹⁹, 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.

• (152) 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

The product concerned by the definitive anti-dumping duty is currently classified under CN codes ex 8431 39 00 , ex 8431 49 20 and ex 8431 49 80 (TARIC codes 8431 39 00 22, 8431 39 00 39, 8431 49 20 10, 8431 49 20 29, 8431 49 80 10 and 8431 49 80 29).

Article 2

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/780 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of steel track shoes 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.

The product exclusion under Article 1(2) shall also apply to the provisional anti-dumping duty under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/780.

Article 4

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, 17 October 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2081/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)