Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2146 of 22 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

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 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 (2) (‘the original investigation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 30,6 % on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’, ‘China’ or ‘the country concerned’).

(2) Following an anti-circumvention investigation, this duty was extended by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 (3) to imports of certain bicycle parts originating in China. An exemption scheme for certain bicycle parts was introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 (4). Since 1993 there have been expiry reviews published in 2000, 2011 and 2019 (5).

(3) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 (6) of 28 August 2019 ranging between 0 % and 48,5 % (‘the measures in force’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the measures in force will be referred to as ‘the previous review investigation’ or ‘the last expiry review’.

(4) The measures in force were extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not in 2013 (7).

(5) The measures in force were further extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not in 2015 (8).

(6) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (9) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(7) The request for review was submitted on 24 May 2024 by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (‘EBMA’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of bicycles in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and continuation and/or likelihood of recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(8) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 29 August 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (10) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(9) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(10) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers and the authorities of China, known importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(11) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

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

(13) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the final sample on the basis of representativity in terms of quantity of production and sales. The Commission also took into account the fact that a number of Union producers were sub-contracting partly or fully the production process to companies operating under tolling agreements (‘tollers’). The sample consisted of four Union producers. The Commission also requested the cooperation of their related and unrelated tollers in providing data for the microeconomic indicators. The sampled Union producers accounted for 40 % of the estimated Union production.

(14) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

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

(16) No unrelated importers provided the requested information and therefore no sample was selected.

(17) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known producers in China to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to identify and/or contact other producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(18) Two producers in China provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The total imports of these two exporting producers accounted for less than 15 % of total bicycle imports from China to the Union during the RIP. The Commission considered this small volume of imports unrepresentative of overall bicycle imports from China.

(19) The Commission informed the Chinese authorities that due to the low level of cooperation it might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer.

(20) In accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular information in the request for review.

(21) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (11) on the day of initiation.

(22) Questionnaire replies were received from the sampled Union producers and their tolling companies.

(24) On 27 August 2025, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(25) No comments from interested parties were received.

(26) The product under review is the same as in the previous expiry review, namely bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, currently falling under CN codes 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712 00 70 91, 8712 00 70 92 and 8712 00 70 99) (‘the product under review’).

(27) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(28) Measures have been extended to imports of the product under review consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia as well as Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in these countries or not.

(30) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(31) On 10 July 2024, Oyama Technology (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd, with TARIC (12) additional code B773, a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 0 %, informed the Commission that the local Taicang Government decided to use the land currently occupied by the company in Taicang and requested a name change.

(32) As a consequence, the company had to relocate to another city (Nantong), with consequent name change to Oyama Technology (Nantong) Co., Ltd.

(33) This is the second name change request from Oyama, which was already granted a name change in 2022 from Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co., Ltd to Oyama Technology (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd which was put into effect by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/57 (13).

(34) The company submitted a copy of the Notice on the Withdrawal of Land Use Rights (14).

(35) The company, following the change of its name (15), requested on 10 July 2024 the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual anti-dumping duty rate applied to it under its previous name.

(36) The Commission examined the information on file and concluded that the change of name was properly registered on 6 January 2022 with the relevant authorities (the Nantong City Market Supervision & Administration Bureau) and did not result in any new relationship nor structural change with other groups of companies, which were not investigated by the Commission.

(37) Accordingly, this change of name does not affect the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 and in particular the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to it.

(38) Given the considerations in the above recital, the Commission considered it appropriate to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 to reflect the changed name of the company previously attributed to additional TARIC code B773 and that the name change should take effect as of 10 July 2024.

(39) During the review investigation period, imports of bicycles from China continued albeit at lower levels than in the original investigation. According to Eurostat imports of bicycles from China accounted for about 6 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 30,2 % market share during the original investigation and 4,1 % during the previous expiry review. Over 30 years of history of measures, the Chinese market share has decreased steadily and stabilised around 4-6 % in the period considered.

(40) As mentioned in recital 18, only two producers from China provided a reply to the sampling exercise, whose cumulative share of total bicycle imports from China to the Union was not considered representative. Therefore, the Commission informed the Chinese authorities that due to the insufficient cooperation, it might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to China. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(41) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation of dumping were based on facts available.

(42) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to China, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(43) The Commission sent a questionnaire to the Government of China (GOC), in order to obtain information that it deemed necessary for its investigation, with regard to the alleged significant distortions. In addition, in 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.

(44) 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 China.

(45) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it had provisionally selected Türkiye as an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(46) On 16 May 2025, the Commission by a Note informed interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value (the ‘Note’). In that Note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of bicycles. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Serbia as an appropriate representative country.

(47) The Commission described in the Note that it has searched the Orbis database (16) and other sources for readily available financial data of companies producing bicycles in Türkiye, indicated as an appropriate representative country by the applicant. However, the information available did not allow to calculate selling general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) or profits for any Turkish company. Türkiye was therefore disregarded as potential representative country.

(48) The product under review is produced in several other upper-middle income countries, such as Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. Similarly to what was observed for Türkiye, for none of these countries the Commission could find readily available financial data for companies producing bicycles.

(49) The Commission only found readily available financial data for three companies producing bicycles in Serbia, another upper-middle income country.

(50) Therefore, Serbia was found to be the most appropriate representative country within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A costs’) and profits based on the readily available and recent financial data of three Serbian bicycle producers (i.e. Venera Bike, Cassini Wheels d.o.o. and Velo Partner d.o.o. Krusevac).

(51) The Commission received no comments on the Note, with the exception of a comment related to a clerical mistake in the customs (‘CN’) codes for certain factors of production.

(52) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(53) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, if ‘it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’, and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’ (‘administrative, selling and general costs’ are referred as ‘SG&A costs’ below).

(54) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the exporting producers, as established in recital 18, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(55) The Commission examined the evidence on the file to decide whether significant distortions within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation exist in the PRC, rendering the use of domestic prices and costs in that country inappropriate. That analysis covered the following evidentiary elements on the various criteria relevant to establish the existence of significant distortions.

(58) The request also referred to the Chinese National Light Industry Technology Innovation and Industry Development Conference held in Beijing on 26 September 2021 during which the 13th and 14th Five-Year Light Industry Plans were discussed (26).

(59) The costs of essentially production factors of bicycles are distorted in the PRC due to government policy interventions. As such, it can be argued that the GOC exerts a significant influence over price setting and development and that Chinese prices are not driven by market forces. The request argued that systemic distortions exist in the following sectors: steel and aluminium (which are core raw materials in the bicycle industry) (27), tyres (28), and chemicals (29). Additionally, the request argued that energy prices are distorted due to the GOC significantly and systemically intervening in the Chinese power market (30). Similarly, land and wage costs are also subject to significant distortions due to the GOC’s interventions (31).

(60) Access to finance and capital is granted by institutions that implement public policy objectives or otherwise do not act independently of the State. The Chinese financial system is characterised by the strong position of State-owned banks, which are strongly connected to the State not only through ownership but also personal relations. The banks implement public policies and thereby conduct their business in accordance with the needs of national economic and social development and under the guidance of the industrial policies of the State (including rules that direct financing into sectors designated by the GOC as encouraged or otherwise important). Bond and credit ratings are often distorted and borrowing costs are kept artificially low to stimulate investment growth (32).

(61) Finally, Chinese bankruptcy laws do not work properly in China, generating distortions in particular by maintaining insolvent firms afloat. The Chinese bankruptcy system is characterised by systematic under-enforcement and delivers inadequately on its main objectives, such as to fairly settle claims and debts and to safeguard the lawful rights and interests of creditors and debtors (33).

(62) In light of the above, the request concluded that there is ample evidence that the Chinese bicycle industry is subject to interventions by the GOC that have led to significant distortions in the sector. As such, the normal value and the dumping margin should be established by reference to Article 2(6a) rather than Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation (34).