Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2153 of 22 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China, and levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of screws without heads 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 (the ‘basic Regulation’) (1) and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 17 October 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of screws without heads (‘screws’) originating in People’s Republic of China (‘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 2 September 2024 by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute (‘the complainant’ or ‘EIFI’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of screws without heads 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) 2025/141 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 19 May 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. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days. No comments on the accuracy of the calculations were received.

(5) On 16 June 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1189 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. A hearing took place with importer Pretec AB.

(8) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions where appropriate.

(9) 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 screws without heads originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘definitive disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the definitive disclosure. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. A hearing took place with EIFI and EFDA. 1.5.   Claims on initiation

(10) No claims were received concerning the initiation. Therefore, the conclusion from recital 6 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(11) Following provisional disclosure, EIFI argued that not all Chinese exporting producers that came forward in the sampling exercise were genuine producers of headless screws.

(12) While the Commission had already excluded some of the companies which came forward and found not to be genuine exporting producers from the list annexed to the provisional Regulation, it conducted additional checks in reply to EIFI’s submission. The Commission asked all cooperating Chinese companies to provide their business license and articles of association, and, where necessary, additional evidence, showing that they were genuine exporting producers of the product concerned. The companies that did not reply were informed that the Commission considered the failure to reply as non-cooperation in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The list of cooperating exporting producers was revised accordingly.

(13) No further comments were received concerning sampling. Therefore, the conclusions from recitals 7 to 16 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(14) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 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’).

(15) The product under investigation is screws and bolts, whether or not with their nuts and washers, without heads, of iron or steel other than stainless steel, regardless of tensile strength, excluding coach screws and other wood screws, screw hooks and screw rings, self-tapping screws, and screws and bolts for fixing railway track construction material.

(16) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling under CN codes 7318 15 42 and 7318 15 48 .

(18) The Commission noted that, indeed, regarding the chemical and physical distinctions, hot dip galvanisation creates a thicker zinc coating (45-215 μm) compared to electrolytic plating (5-20 μm). However, the thickness of galvanisation and length of SIRs were considered to reflect a product’s specific application falling then within the same product definition, rather than a different product.

(19) As for the technical and end-use claims, the Commission found that SIRs were used in the same sectors as other headless screws, notably the construction sector and were therefore in direct competition with other headless screws in this sector.

(20) Moreover, evidence provided by EIFI demonstrate existing production capabilities of zinc coating between 100 000 and 300 000 MT/year and production of rods up to 6 meters between 50 000 and 150 000 MT/year in the Union. The Commission found that there are other production methods available of protecting steel from corrosion in especially Nordic climates.

(21) The claim to exclude hot dip galvanised structural infrastructure rods of 5,8-metre lengths was therefore rejected.

(22) Following definitive disclosure, Pretec submitted that the Commission had not properly considered the full scope of scientific, technical, and regulatory evidence provided by Pretec, supporting the distinct nature of SIRs and that the Commission should therefore reconsider and grant Pretec’s request for the exclusion of SIRs. The absence of viable alternatives in the Union and the flawed rationale for product classification further justify excluding SIRs from the scope.

(24) The Commission noted that, when defining the product under investigation, the complaint explicitly addressed corrosion-protective coatings, including hot dip galvanization, as relevant to products used in outdoor construction, bridges and utility structures exposed to harsh environments such as moisture, salt, and extreme weather. The complaint further acknowledged that SIRs, despite their specific galvanization process, are functionally and technically aligned with the products covered by this investigation.

(25) The Commission emphasized that the complaint incorporated various standards (ISO, EN, DIN) defining mechanical and material specifications for steel screws, including ISO 898, which governs mechanical properties of the steel. While Pretec highlighted ISO standards like ISO 10684 and ISO 1461 for SIRs, these do not establish a separate product category. A distinct ISO standard merely reflects that SIRs may represent a non-standardized variant of headless screws, not a fundamentally different product for the purposes of this investigation. The Commission further observed that Pretec’s reliance on technical requirements such as impact strength (27 Joules at – 20 °C) and compliance with corrosivity classes C3–C5 aligns with the broader scope of the investigation, as these criteria are consistent with the general principles of corrosion resistance and mechanical performance outlined in the complaint.

(26) The product scope of this investigation encompassed threaded rods and headless screws, including those designed for specialized applications, provided they share overlapping physical, technical, and functional characteristics. The existence of binding technical specifications for specific projects (e.g., AMA Anläggning, requirements from Vattenfall and Svenska Kraftnät) did not negate the interchangeability of SIRs with other headless screws when they meet equivalent performance criteria. The Commission further noted that while SIRs may compete with stainless steel products in certain applications, the complaint explicitly addresses such competition, and the exclusion of stainless steel from the investigation does not justify the exclusion of SIRs.

(27) The Commission acknowledged Pretec’s assertion that SIRs are non-interchangeable with smaller headless screws due to differences in size, load-bearing capacity, and technical requirements. However, screws, regardless of size, often adhere to standard engineering principles and can serve similar mechanical roles (e.g., load bearing, fastening) across applications if they meet appropriate strength and safety criteria. The Commission did not find evidence that SIRs’ technical specifications render them categorically non-interchangeable with other products within the scope. Furthermore, while Pretec claimed that Union producers lack the capacity to supply SIRs meeting ISO standards, the complaint’s annexes and further submissions confirmed the existence of Union production capacity for hot dip galvanized threaded rods, meeting ISO standards and of larger lengths.

(28) In light of the considerations outlined above, the Commission concluded that Pretec’s request for the exclusion of SIRs from the scope of this investigation is without merit and therefore rejected. The product scope, as defined in the complaint and its annexes (5), encompasses SIRs due to their overlapping technical, functional, and regulatory characteristics with other headless screws.

(29) Following the imposition of provisional measures, EIFI requested the Commission to include threaded rods imported under TARIC code 7308 90 98 90 (6) and used for anchor bolt cages to the product scope of the investigation, since these anchor bolt cages were misclassified. According to EIFI, misclassification would allow undue imports of Chinese threaded rods and would undermine the anti-dumping measures. According to EIFI, an anchor bolt cage is made up of primarily of high-strength bolts (classified under TARIC code 7318 15 48 90), two steel plates (foundation and distribution plates), nuts, washers, and other minor components, which are currently being imported unassembled. The use of the code 7308 90 98 90 to classify anchor bolt cages which are made with threaded rods would therefore be incorrect, since the rods mentioned in the description of the code are not elements of connection (such as threaded rods), but rather simple unthreaded bars.

(30) The product scope was defined in the Notice of initiation. Anchor bolt cages were not covered by the complaint and therefore no evidence of dumping and resulting injury justifying an investigation has been provided by the Union industry. The argument was therefore rejected.

(31) Following the definitive disclosure, EIFI asserted that duties should be applied pro rata to the share of threaded rods included in products imported under CN 7308 90 98 (anchor bolt cages), as these threaded rods fall within the scope of the investigation. EIFI clarified that anchor bolt cages, primarily composed of threaded rods, are required to be classified under CN 7308 90 98 under the existing Binding Tariff Information (7). Consequently, the party provided evidence that threaded rods account for the majority of the anchor cage’s weight and value.

(32) Alternatively, EIFI argued that the Commission allegedly erred in denying the request to expand the product scope to include CN 7308 90 98 , which should therefore be incorporated into the anti-dumping measures. To support this, the party cited the anti-dumping investigation on sacks and bags (8), where products classified under CN codes not initially targeted in the relevant notice of initiation were later included in the scope of the proceeding.

(33) Threaded rods assembled in anchor bolt cages were not defined within the scope of the complaint as products subject to this investigation. As such, the Union industry did not submit any evidence of dumping or injury sufficient to justify initiating an investigation into the threaded rods assembled in the anchor bolt cages. Furthermore, all interested parties were required to submit information regarding the product scope within 10 days of the Notice of Initiation’s publication. No such request was submitted by the deadline, and no evidence was provided to demonstrate that threaded rods in anchor bolt cages should fall within the product description outlined in the complaint. Consequently, these threaded rods were not included in the scope of the investigation, and no information (including the import volumes and prices from the country concerned, market shares, all other relevant injury indicators, downstream use and situation of such users, etc.) was collected and analysed regarding them. While the party referred to the sacks and bags investigation (9), where products not initially targeted were later included due to meeting the product description, this case was found to be different. In the current investigation, the threaded rods in anchor bolt cages did not satisfy the product description provided in the complaint and was therefore not covered by this investigation. The claim of the party was thus rejected.

(34) An importer (Kohlhage) requested the Commission to consider the distinction between different products and production methods, arguing that certain products require additional steps, such as drawing of wire, cold forming of the bolt, partially threading the bolt, machining custom features on the bolt, as well as plating with zinc iron. These products are produced at significantly higher costs compared to the investigated threaded rods and studs, despite being classified under the same customs code. The importer argued that such products should be excluded from the product scope, claimed that the Commission did not provide a comparison calculation or evidence of dumping for these distinct product types.

(35) The fact that a product can be produced using different manufacturing processes is not inherently relevant to defining the scope of a product under investigation. In this case, the additional production steps cited by the importer were already outlined in the original complaint. Furthermore, the investigation confirmed that the imported products share similar physical and technical characteristics, and basic end uses. Specific features distinguishing the products under investigation (e.g. coating and other variations) are already accounted for in the product types reported by sampled exporting producers, for which dumping margins are calculated.

(36) Moreover, the Commission made a comparison between product types at the level of product control number (PCN), which included the main characteristics per product type and would therefore distinguish between differences relevant to cost and price of the various product types.

(37) Therefore, there is no justification for excluding product types produced at significantly higher costs from the investigation. This claim was consequently rejected.

(38) The Commission received no comments on the procedure for determining the normal value in this case under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(39) The Commission’s provisional findings in recitals 32 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

(40) In the absence of any comments, the findings in Section 3.2.1 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(41) Following publication of the provisional Regulation, Chinafar Group, Junyue, Brother Group and EFDA reiterated their claims that Malaysia should have been selected as a representative country instead of Thailand, maintaining that i) the Malaysian import data were more reliable than the Thai import data, and that ii) the identified Malaysian companies were more reliable, and representative compared to Thailand’s. The detailed claims are set out in sections 3.1.3 to 3.1.8 below.

(42) Brother Group and EFTA also maintained that, had the Commission carried out an assessment of the level and environmental protection, this would have shown that Thailand’s record was less favourable than that of Malaysia.

(43) Since the Commission selected Thailand as the appropriate representative country, there was no need to carry out such an assessment in accordance with the last sentence of Article 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation.

(44) Based on the above, the Commission’s provisional findings in recitals 90 to 149 are therefore confirmed.

(45) On the quality of import data of the factors of production, Chinafar Group, Junyue, Brother Group and EFDA repeated the same arguments submitted after publication of the two notes to the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value, arguing that the quality of readily available import data per HS code for Thailand was not of a higher quality than for Malaysia and that Malaysia should be selected as a representative country instead. The parties did not bring forward new evidence nor arguments to support its claims and therefore the reasons and conclusions in recitals 97 to 145 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed and the submissions rejected.

(46) Brother Group and Junyue argued that the representative country should not be selected on the basis that it is the largest importing country of the main factors of production in terms of quantity amongst all potential countries.

(47) The Commission based its selection of the representative country on a balanced assessment of the existence of relevant readily available data for the main raw materials, which was set out in recitals 106 to 109 of the provisional Regulation. The Commission did not only consider the absolute volume of the imports, but also the existence of imports from China and countries listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) and their impact on the average import price. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(48) Furthermore, Brother Group argued that the fact that the import price of raw materials from other sources into a country was similar to the import price from China is not in itself conclusive that that price is influenced by Chinese imports. As all these factors of production are commodity steel materials widely traded on the global market, it is common that the import prices into various countries or regions are similar and comparable.