Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2386 of 27 November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China 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 (‘basic Regulation’) (1), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation of the Council (EC) No 452/2007 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine (‘the original measures’).

(2) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 (3), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co, a Chinese exporting producer of ironing boards. The investigations that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigations’.

(3) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 (4), the Council amended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards originating in People’s Republic of China following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

(4) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2010 (5), the Council amended the measures following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(5) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2010 (6), the Council re-imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards of Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan, a Chinese exporting producer of ironing boards, to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-141/08 P (7).

(6) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 987/2012 (8), the Council re-imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd, to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-274/07 (9).

(7) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 695/2013 (10), the Council extended the measures for a further five years with regard to imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealed the measures on imports of ironing boards originating in Ukraine, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and an interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(8) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1662 (11), the Commission re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(9) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are at rates ranging between 18,1 % and 39,6 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers and a duty rate of 42,3 % for all other companies in the People’s Republic of China.

(10) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (12), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(11) The request for review was lodged on 29 June 2024 by 5 Union producers (Afer FUTE – Fábrica de Utilidades de Tubo S.A., Brabantia Latvia SIA, Colombo New Scal SpA, Rörets Polska Sp. z o.o. and Sonecol Indústria Metalurgica de Utilidades Domésticas S.A.) (‘the applicants’) on behalf of the Union industry of ironing boards in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation (‘the request’). The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(12) 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 1 October 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘China’ or ‘PRC’) 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 (13) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(13) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(14) 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 applicants, other Union producers, all known producers in the People’s Republic of China, importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(15) 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.

(16) 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

(17) In the 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 representativity in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product. This sample consisted of three Union producers, accounting for more than 55 % of the estimated total volume of Union production and sales and ensured a good geographical spread. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. None of the interested parties had comments and the Commission confirmed therefore that the provisionally sampled Union producers have been finally selected to form part of the definitive sample. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of importers

(18) 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.

(19) No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the absence of cooperation, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of producers in the PRC

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

(21) No exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the absence of cooperation, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(22) 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.

(23) 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’).

(24) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers, unrelated importers and users. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (14) on the day of initiation.

(25) Questionnaire replies were received only from the three sampled Union producers.

(27) On 19 September 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.

(28) No comments contesting the Commission’s findings were received.

(29) The product subject to this expiry review is the same as in in the original investigations and previous expiry review, namely ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest (‘the product under review’).

(30) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC currently falling under CN codes ex 3924 90 00 , ex 4421 99 99 , ex 7323 93 00 , ex 7323 99 00 , ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 00 10, 4421 99 99 10, 7323 93 00 10, 7323 99 00 10, 8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51).

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

(33) During the review investigation period, imports of ironing boards from China continued. According to data reported to the Commission by the Member States in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation (‘Article 14(6) database’), imports of ironing boards from the PRC accounted for about 6 % of the Union market in the review investigation period, as compared to 11 % during the previous expiry review (15). In absolute terms the volume of imports was significant in the review investigation period, and it had an increasing trend over the period considered.

(34) As mentioned in recital (21), none of the exporters/producers in China cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, on 16 December 2024, the Commission notified the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and base its findings on continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in respect of the exporters/producers in the PRC on the facts available. The Commission did not receive any comments or claims regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation from the GOC.

(35) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury were based on facts available, in particular on the information provided in the request and the statistics based on the Article 14(6) database. In addition, the Commission used other sources of publicly available information such as the World Bank, the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) and the Orbis Bureau van Dijk (‘Orbis’) databases and International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) statistics. The Commission also relied on the findings of the previous expiry review as well as the findings of the anti-dumping investigations concerning the same product initiated by the competent authorities of the US and the UK.

(36) Given 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, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(37) 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, on 19 December 2024, the Commission notified 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. No comments or claims regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation were received.

(38) 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.

(39) On 19 May 2025, the Commission informed interested parties by a note on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. 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 ironing boards (the ‘FOP Note’). In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks and the request, the Commission identified Türkiye as an appropriate representative country. The Commission received no comments on the FOP Note.

(40) 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’.

(41) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case 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’ is referred to hereinafter as ‘SG&A’).

(42) 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, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(43) 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.

(44) First, the evidence contained in the request included the following elements pointing to the existence of significant distortions.

(45) The applicants pointed out that the market in question is served to a significant extent by enterprises operating under the ownership, control or policy supervision of the Chinese authorities. The applicants noted that such influence involves not only the market of the product under review but also the market of key raw materials (namely steel). According to the applicants, this is achieved by the GOC through two main channels, one involves the reshaping of the corporate structure of the sector, and the other the exercise of control over management and personnel of individual SOEs (16).

(46) The applicants took note of the Commission’s findings in the previous expiry review, stating that suppliers of main components of the product concerned are owned by the Chinese state. In the request, the applicants not only noted that ironing board producers, such as Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd, maintain tight links with the CCP (17), but also referred to, as established in the previous expiry review, the influence of the CCP on providers of key components of the product under review (18).

(47) The applicants also emphasised that the state presence in firms allows it to interfere with respect to prices and costs. It referred to the findings of the Commission in the previous expiry review, stating that this is achieved through the presence of CCP cells within both public and private enterprises (19). Prices and costs are influenced through various instruments such as the artificial increase or decrease of the level of raw material supply or through a price setting mechanism (20).

(48) Moreover, the applicants indicated that public policies or measures discriminate in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influence free market forces. The applicants noted in that respect that ‘Chinese policies are demonstrably interventionist’. In particular, the applicants mentioned policy measures such as the Made in China 2025, ‘which sets the goal of promoting manufacturing industry, […] and it identifies loan interest subsidies as a type of financial support to be provided to enterprises’, stating further that ‘banks and other lenders are supposed to support these policies by giving loans to companies active in such sectors’ (21).

(49) The applicants noted that the sector of the product under review is highly influenced by policy measures on steel, which is the main raw material for manufacturing of ironing boards. Regarding this, the applicants noted the ‘overarching control of the government which prevents free market forces from prevailing in the steel sector’ (22).

(50) Moreover, the applicants claimed the lack, discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy, corporate or property laws. The applicants referred to the Commission findings in the previous expiry review, stating that ‘the sector of the product concerned is subject to the top-down distortions arising from the discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy and property laws’ (23).

(51) The applicants further pointed out the distortions of wage costs in the sector of the product under review and its raw materials in China, making reference to the previous expiry review which had established that ‘wage costs were distorted in the ironing boards manufacturing sector and in the sectors of its key components’ (24).

(52) Lastly, the applicants noted that access to finance is distorted in favour of producers of the product under review. In particular, according to the applicants, ‘the functioning of the financial system is characterised by state presence, on both borrowing and lending side as well as by the absence of normal market mechanisms such as effective and transparent bankruptcy and market exit procedures’ (25).