Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/157 of 23 January 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of candles, tapers and the like 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 19 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of candles, tapers and the like originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’, ‘the PRC’ or ‘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 4 November 2024 by Union producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production in the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of candles, tapers and the like 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) 2025/511 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 17 July 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. Two of the three exporting producers submitted comments of a technical nature, which were addressed in the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’).

(5) On 14 August 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of candles, tapers and the like originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1732 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) The positions of each of the parties listed above have been detailed and addressed under the respective heading below.

(8) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with the complainant/the Union industry, two of the sampled Union producers and the CHCIA.

(9) 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.

(10) 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 candles, tapers and the like originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(11) Following the final disclosure, the importer Bunnik Creations B.V, claimed that the strict procedure of the investigation did not allow parties to properly follow the investigation nor react in a timely manner to procedural documents and information requests from the Commission. It therefore did not have the opportunity to provide detailed claims to the Commission, especially when those procedural deadlines fell during the summer holiday period.

(12) The Commission must conduct the investigation within the applicable statutory deadlines in order to preserve the integrity and progression of the investigation. The statutory deadlines applicable to this investigation were published in the Notice of Initiation. Section 6 of the Notice of Initiation explained the schedule of the investigation and, in particular, that interested parties will have 15 days to comment in writing on the provisional findings or on the information document, and 10 days to comment in writing on the definitive findings, unless otherwise specified. In addition, since the initiation of the investigation the Commission made available on its website an indicative timeline of the investigation, which allows interested parties to anticipate on the timing of certain investigation milestones (6). While the Commission may grant extensions to these time limits when duly justified, such extensions should concern exceptional circumstances only. Adhering to the deadlines is crucial to ensuring a fair and effective conclusion of the investigation that complies with legal requirements.

(13) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. A hearing took place with the importer Bunnik Creations B.V. regarding its claims described in recital (11) above. In addition, Bunnik Creations B.V. had also requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer with regard to the same claims and in order to set up a hearing with the Commission. The Hearing Officer intervened and facilitated the organisation of the hearing between the Commission services and Bunnik Creations B.V.

(14) In the absence of any comments with respect to this section, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (6) to (11) of the provisional Regulation.

(15) Following the provisional disclosure some parties contested the Commission’s decision to grant anonymity to the complainant producers, arguing that a statement of ‘risk of retaliation’ is not sufficient to provide anonymity.

(16) The Commission noted that the complainant submitted a substantiated request for anonymity alongside the complaint. The request included specific concerns regarding the risk of retaliation. The Commission’s assessment of the request took into account the nature of the market, the position of the complainant producers, and the potential for commercial retaliation, which was deemed real. Granting anonymity is consistent with established practice and legal standards, which allow for anonymity where disclosure could result in adverse consequences for the legitimate interests of the complainant producers. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(17) Similarly, following the provisional disclosure, certain parties claimed that the changes made between the provisional sampling and the final sampling of Union producers may have affected the representativeness of the sample.

(18) The Commission noted, as stated in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, that at the time the sampling was conducted, the two selected producers accounted for over 35 % of the production and more than 40 % of the sales volume of the companies supporting the complaint. Upon verification of the macroeconomic questionnaire, it was established that these producers represented over 16 % of the estimated total production and more than 17 % of the estimated total sales volume of the Union industry. The Union industry consists of a large number of producers, more than 80 in total, including both large enterprises and a wide range of small and medium-sized companies. Considering this structure, a sample covering over 16 % of the industry is representative of the Union industry.

(19) Following the final disclosure, importer Bunnik Creations B.V. claimed that only two Union producers had been sampled out of a large number of union producers, arguing that the sample selection was not representative of the Union industry. It also claimed a lack of transparency by allowing anonymity of certain Union producers. The Commission noted that, as explained in recitals (14) to (17) above as well as the in the Notes to the file (7) on sampling, the sampling was representative of the Union industry. Furthermore, the Commission identified compelling justifications for granting anonymity to those Union producers that had made a request in this regard. Consequently, the claim was rejected.

(20) Following the final disclosure, Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom requested information on the representativeness of the sampled Union producers. It also claimed that no data had been made available regarding the size of the producers taking part in the sampling exercise. As explained above in recital (19), the Commission considered the sample of Union producers to be representative for the Union industry. It made available to interested parties the data that was available to the Commission at the time of the sampling decision and that would allow interested parties to assess the representativeness of the sample, including the representativeness of the sampled Union producers in terms of production and sales on the Union market.

(21) Following the final disclosure, Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom argued that the claims submitted by the Union industry concerning Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom relationship with another Chinese exporting producer should result in the Union industry losing its right to anonymity. Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom claimed that it is a breach of its rights of defence that such allegations are made by an anonymous party.

(22) The Commission recalled that the anonymity of the Union industry, on the one hand, and the relationship between the two exporting producers, on the other hand, are different subjects, which were addressed separately. Anonymity was granted to the Union industry because it submitted a reasoned request for anonymity, which the Commission found credible and justified. The Commission did not find any reason for these circumstances to have changed and the Union industry submitted claims concerning the relationship between two Chinese exporting producers would not affect this. Further, the Union industry’s claim was made available to Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom in an open version of the submission and Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom has had the opportunity to address this claim and be heard by the Commission. The claim was therefore rejected.

(23) In the absence of further comments with respect to this section, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals (12) to (15) of the provisional Regulation.

(24) In recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission noted that one exporting producer had requested an individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. After the publication of the provisional measures, the same exporting producer reiterated its demand.

(25) Given the high complexity of the case – involving a highly variable product and intricate production and sales processes of already three sampled exporting producers – the Commission considered that granting this request would be unduly burdensome and would risk preventing the timely completion of the investigation. The request was therefore rejected.

(26) In the absence of any comments concerning the investigation period and the period considered, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recital (21) of the provisional Regulation.

(27) Following the provisional disclosure, some parties reiterated their claims regarding the scope of the product under investigation and the inadequacy of the Product Control Number (PCN).

(28) On one side it was claimed that handmade decorative candles are distinct from tapers and tealights, and do not compete with the types of candles produced by the Union industry. Therefore, they should be excluded from the scope of the investigation.

(29) Similarly, some parties claimed that the PCN was inadequate to capture the detailed differences between various candle types. It was argued that several candle types exported by the sampled Chinese exporting producers did not match those candle types produced by the sampled Union producers. This discrepancy, which in some cases resulted in a low level of product matching, was cited as evidence that certain specialised candles exported from China are not manufactured by the Union industry.

(30) Concerning the product scope of the investigation, the Commission reiterates that, as stated in recitals (22) to (25) of the provisional Regulation, all candles, tapers, and similar products fall within the scope of the product under investigation. This includes handmade decorative candles. Specifically, the Commission noted that handmade candles are produced by Union producers and compete with imports from China. The claim was, therefore, rejected.

(31) Additionally, the Commission clarified that while the candle types produced by the sampled Chinese exporting producers and the sampled Union producers do not entirely overlap, this does not constitute evidence that the Union industry does not produce a wider variety of candle types, including certain specialised or handmade decorative candles. The Union industry comprises over 80 producers, with a wide diversity in terms of size and product range.

(32) Furthermore, it should be noted that, as established during the investigation, a portion of candle sales in the Union market occurs through tender procedures, where product specifications are defined in advance. The absence of certain candle types (and thus PCN) in the sampled Union producers’ sales reflects that these producers did not win the tenders for those specific candle types (and thus PCNs) during the investigation period, in part due to the low unfair dumped prices offered by Chinese exporters, rather than an inability to produce those types of candles. The investigation established the capacity and diversity of the sampled Union producers’ portfolio, including special candle types. Finally, the PCN system was designed to ensure like-for-like comparisons, meaning that candles with specific characteristics (e.g. container type, colour, scent) are only compared with similar products to ensure the accuracy of the injury and dumping analysis. The claims were, therefore, rejected.

(33) In the absence of any other comments with respect to the product scope, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals (22) to (29) of the provisional Regulation

(34) Following the provisional disclosure, two of the three sampled exporting producers, two non-sampled exporting producers (Shenyang Qikale International Trade Co. Ltd. and Zhejiang Neeo Home decoration Co, Ltd), CHCIA and the Union industry submitted comments within the deadline. Moreover, the Mission of the PRC to the European Union came forward after the expiry of the deadline. Hearings were held with all of the parties mentioned, except for the non-sampled exporting producer.

(35) The arguments of the parties are presented and addressed under the respective heading below.

(36) The procedure for the determination of the normal value was set out in recitals (30) to (37) of the provisional Regulation.

(37) The Commission’s determinations concerning the existence of significant distortions were set out in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the provisional Regulation.

(38) On the day of publication of provisional measures (14 August 2025), the Commission informed the Government of China (Mission of the PRC to the European Union) of its decision and invited the Government of China to submit any comments thereto by 29 August 2025.

(39) On 15 September 2025, the Government of China submitted a set of comments concerning the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. As the submission was received outside the prescribed time limit, the Commission did not take it into account.

(40) In the absence of any further comments concerning the existence of significant distortions, the findings set out in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(41) In the absence of comments concerning the selection of the representative country, the conclusions set out in recitals (149) to (167) of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(42) Following the provisional disclosure, while no parties objected to the choice of Thailand as a representative country, several parties contested the use of Türkiye for certain factors of production (‘FOPs’).

(43) It is recalled that for three important FOPs (paraffin wax, glass containers and packaging paper), import volumes into Thailand included significant quantities (more than 50 %) originating from China which were found to have a distortive effect on the import prices into Thailand from other countries. The Commission sought an alternative country where the import prices of these FOPs would be unaffected by price distortions. Türkiye emerged as the most suitable option.

(44) In response to the provisional Regulation and to the final disclosure, Qingdao Kingking and Ningbo Kwung’s Wisdom challenged the possibility of using multiple representative countries, citing the singular reference to ‘representative country’ in Article 2.6.(a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(45) As explained in recital (155) of the provisional Regulation, only in Thailand the Commission identified five companies that produced candles and for which financial data was available with one quarter overlap with the investigation period. Thus, the Commission had no other choice than to use Thailand as a representative country.

(46) The Commission reiterated its conclusion made in recital (166) of the provisional Regulation and noted that the very purpose of the sourcing costs and prices from other representative countries is to find costs and prices that are undistorted. If the share of imports for a particular FOP, such as paraffin wax, into the representative country is significant and consequently render the import price for this input into that country unsuitable, the Commission may use alternative sources for that particular FOP. The said Article 2.6.(a)(a) explicitly mentions undistorted international prices, costs or benchmarks, and the Commission considered that the use of imports into Türkiye for those particular FOPs falls within the discretion of the Commission under this Article.

(47) In response to the provisional Regulation and to the final disclosure, Qingdao Kingking contested the suitability of using import figures into Türkiye since these figures were allegedly not reliable. To this end, Qingdao Kingking had compared export statistics to Türkiye from other third countries with the corresponding import statistics into Türkiye from the third countries concerned and found inconsistencies.

(48) The Commission noted that Qingdao Kingking did not question the use of the data source in its comments to the two Notes for the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value (see recital (36) and (37) in the provisional Regulation). The data therein shared with the interested parties contains import volumes and values extracted from the Global Trade Atlas (8), and is the source of data for imports into Thailand, Türkiye and all other countries. Moreover, Qingdao Kingking did not submit any evidence demonstrating that using the export statistics from other third countries to Türkiye would be more appropriate than relying on the import statistics extracted from the Global Trade Atlas. The Commission considered the latter the best available source of import data available for the purpose of establishing an undistorted price.