Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/244 of 3 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in 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 6 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders (‘HPSC’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’) 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 24 October 2024 by five companies, Cylinders Holding a.s., Dalmine S.p.A. (Tenaris), Eurocylinder Systems AG, Faber Industrie S.p.A., and Worthington Cylinders GmbH (‘the complainants’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders 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) 2025/531 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 11 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. One sampled exporting producer submitted comments relating to the calculation of the export price and CIF values used for the calculation of its dumping margin. After analysis, these comments were accepted, and the dumping margins were corrected accordingly.

(5) On 5 August 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1711 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(6) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), Leebucc (Tianjin) Hydraulics Equipment Co., Ltd. (an unrelated trader in the People’s Republic of China), two sampled exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China: Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Corp., Ltd. (‘Tianjin Tianhai’) and Zhejiang Winner Fire Fighting Equipment Co., Ltd., (‘Zhejiang Winner’), the European Cylinder Manufacturer Association (the ‘complainants’) and two companies users of the product under investigation: Widmann Gase GmbH and Hydac Technology GmbH filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Tianjin Tianhai and the Shaoxing Ruiying High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (‘Ruiying’), which is a Swedish Chinese joint venture producing seamless cylinders for CO2 extinguishers and high-pressure gas cylinders. Additionally, further to the request of Tianjin Tianhai, a hearing was held with the European Committee of the Manufacturers of Fire Protection Equipment and Fire Fighting Vehicles (‘EUROFEU’) and the Bundesverband Technischer Brandschutz (‘BVFA’) two associations representing European fire safety and firefighting equipment manufacturers.

(8) 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 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 high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in People’s Republic of China (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) In the absence of comments concerning initiation, recitals 1 to 2 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(11) Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, an exporting producer, Shaoxing Ruiying High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (‘Ruiying’) claimed an individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. This request was rejected on the ground that first, Ruiying did not provide a reply to the sampling form and second, this claim was introduced well beyond the 30 days of the date of notification of the sample set out in the in the Notice of Initiation.

(12) In the absence of comments regarding the sampling of Union producers and exporting producers, recitals 6 to 15 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(13) In the absence of comments concerning the questionnaire replies and verification visits, recitals 16 to 19 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(14) As stated in Section 1.6. of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). 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) In the absence of comments concerning the investigation period and period considered, recital 20 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

(16) As set out in recitals 21 to 23 of the provisional Regulation, the product under investigation are empty high-pressure seamless steel cylinders (‘HPSC’), including empty HPSC used in fire extinguishers, for compressed or liquefied gas, of steel, of all diameters and volume capacities, whether or not threaded, regardless of internal coating or plating, regardless of external finishing and shape, whether or not with a gas bladder inserted, regardless of the cylinders’ fitting with a valve, neck ring, foot ring or piping, whether or not fastened together to form a bundle.

(17) Non-refillable cylinders of capacities up to and including 120 ml, covered by European standard EN 16509:2014 and/or UN-number 2037 assigned by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, are excluded from the product scope.

(18) To prevent any misunderstanding in the context of this procedure, it is hereby clarified that any reference to ‘fire extinguishers’ shall be understood as referring to empty HPSC intended for use in fire extinguishers.

(19) As set out in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned is high-pressure seamless cylinders for compressed or liquefied gas, of steel, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the product concerned’).

(20) As indicated in the provisional Regulation, the Commission clarified that the scope covers empty but not filled fire extinguishers. For empty fire extinguishers meeting the product definition, specific TARIC codes (8424 10 00 11 and 8424 10 00 21) were included for their identification and monitoring.

(21) After provisional measures were imposed, the Commission identified a potential issue concerning the classification of certain HPSC imported as components of fire extinguishers or machineries, under CN codes 8424 90 80 and 8479 90 70 respectively. Because these codes are basket codes covering multiple products, the Commission had to make an estimation to evaluate the potential volume of HPSC imports falling under them.

(22) However, to prevent circumvention of the anti-dumping measures, the Commission proposes to create specific TARIC codes under these headings to ensure that HPSC cannot be imported under these broad basket codes without being subject to the measures, thereby securing the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures.

(23) The CN and TARIC codes covering the scope of this investigation, which are given for information only and without prejudice to a subsequent change in the tariff classification, are the following: CN codes ex 7311 00 11 , ex 7311 00 13 , ex 7311 00 19 , ex 7311 00 30 , ex 8424 10 00 , ex 8424 90 80 and ex 8479 90 70 (TARIC codes 7311 00 11 15, 7311 00 11 80, 7311 00 13 15, 7311 00 13 80, 7311 00 19 15, 7311 00 19 80, 7311 00 30 15, 7311 00 30 80, 8424 10 00 11, 8424 10 00 21, 8424 90 80 60 and 8479 90 70 60).

(24) In recitals 25 to 26 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission provisionally concluded that the product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC; and the product under investigation produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry were therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. In the absence of comments, the provisional conclusions were confirmed.

(25) Accumulator shells are components of hydraulic bladder accumulators used in hydraulic machinery and power units. Besides the HPSC, which can be sourced in the Union or imported, most other components, such as rubber bladders and fluid or gas ports, are produced and assembled in the Union.

(26) Following provisional disclosure, the cooperating non-sampled exporter Leebucc (Tianjin) Hydraulics Equipment Co., Ltd., (‘Leebucc’), and a supporting importer Hydac Technology GmbH, claimed that the product definition in the Notice of Initiation lacked sufficient precision, resulting in the erroneous inclusion of accumulator shells. It alleged that accumulator shells have distinct characteristics, additional components, and different end uses compared with HPSC. It referred to the treatment of fire extinguishers and the Commission’s approach in the biodiesel case (5) as precedents supporting their exclusion, arguing that accumulator shells are semi-finished products that cannot circulate freely in the Union market and that comparing them with finished HPSC would distort proper price comparison.

(27) The Commission noted however that accumulator shells are covered by the product definition and separately identified in the product control numbers (‘PCN’) used for the dumping and injury analysis. The Commission also noted that the presence of additional parts or specifications, or the application of different technical norms depending on end-use, does not alter the basic physical, chemical, or technical characteristics of the product.

(28) In addition, the Commission rejected the analogy with fire extinguishers, which, although subject to distinct technical standards, were not excluded from the HPSC investigation either.

(29) Analogies with the bicycle and biodiesel cases were also dismissed. Unlike those cases, accumulator shells and other HPSC are an integral part of one single investigation and share the same fundamental characteristics, whereas Sustainable Aviation Fuel in the biodiesel case for instance had different distinct basic characteristics notably from a chemical point of view.

(30) Furthermore, regarding the claims that accumulator shells are ‘unfinished’ and not freely circulating in the market, the Commission confirmed that the product scope is determined by inherent product characteristics rather than market perception or the presence of additional specifications. The product definition covers cylinders regardless of threading, internal coating, external finishing, or shape, and cylinders meeting these criteria are fully in-scope.

(31) It was further noted that market considerations, including market share of a product or the number of suppliers, are not decisive for defining the product scope. The small market share of accumulator shells and the limited number of Union suppliers do not alter the fact that they are integral part of HPSC.

(32) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the arguments raised by Leebucc and the supporting importer do not warrant any change to the product scope. The claims for exclusion of accumulator shells were therefore rejected.

(33) The complainants claimed that following the exclusion of filled fire extinguishers from the product scope and despite the Commission explanations outlined in recital 36 of the provisional Regulation that ‘considering the particularly costly and cumbersome safety and security requirements applicable to the intercontinental transport of highly hazardous goods such as filled high-pressure seamless cylinders, the alleged risks of circumvention were found to be limited’, there was still a risk of avoiding the payments of anti-dumping duties by importing HPSC declared as filled or filled with a non-hazardous substance other than a mixture of gas so as to render their transport safe.

(34) Therefore, the complainants invited the Commission to make sure that imports of filled HPSC were subject to surveillance measures and be identified separately from other HPSC imported under CN code 8424 10 00 .

(35) In this respect, the Commission noted that to distinguish between empty and filled fire extinguishers, two dedicated TARIC codes (8424 10 00 11 and 8424 10 00 21) were created. This ensures that empty fire extinguishers are separately identified, monitored, and subject to the applicable anti-dumping duties, preventing any risk of circumvention through misdeclaration.

(36) Moreover, under Union customs classification rules, and in particular General Interpretative Rule 5(b) (GIR 5(b)), packing materials or containers presented with goods are classified with the goods only if they are of a kind normally used for packing and not suitable for repetitive use. However, where a cylinder which can be refilled many times, already contains gas, the cylinder and its contents are classified separately: the cylinder falls under CN code 7311 00 , while the gas is classified under its respective CN code.

(37) As a result, any attempt to import filled cylinders to circumvent measures on empty cylinders would not succeed, because the importation of filled cylinders is legally and administratively distinct from the empty cylinders subject to the anti-dumping duties. The measures, together with the applicable TARIC codes (8424 10 00 11 and 8424 10 00 21), ensure that empty cylinders are properly identified and monitored.

(38) Following final disclosure, the complainants, sought a re-wording of recitals 36 and 37, considering that it was too vague to ensure the uniform application of duties across Member States. In particular they requested an explicit reference to the fact that the duties apply to all HPSC, including those imported filled.

(39) The Commission recalled that the product concerned by the investigation and the resulting measures is limited to empty HPSC, as defined in the product scope. Filled HPSC do not fall within this scope, as they are downstream products that were not subject to the investigation. The wording of recitals 36 and 37 therefore appropriately reflected the scope of the product under investigation and the duties should apply only to empty HPSC. The claim was therefore rejected.

(40) With regard to the suggestion made by the complainants to add the sentence at the end recital 36 above: ‘the same principles apply to cylinders imported under other customs codes, including under heading 8424 10 ’, the Commission clarified that, in the case of fire extinguishers made with HPSC, the classification is determined by the essential function and characteristics of the fire extinguisher as a whole (General Interpretative Rule 1 (GIR 1)). Fire extinguishers are classified in heading 8424 whether filled or not and the whole appliance (containing cylinder as its component) cannot be considered a packaging or container. Accordingly, General Interpretative Rule 5 (GIR 5) does not apply. The suggested amendment was therefore not considered justified as the fire extinguisher made of a cylinder and its content are in this case classified together under a single CN code.

(41) The Commission noted that as indicated above in recital 35, to distinguish between empty and filled fire extinguishers, dedicated TARIC codes (8424 10 00 11 and 8424 10 00 21) had been created to ensure that empty fire extinguishers are separately identified and subject to the applicable anti-dumping duties. In addition, TARIC code 8424 90 80 60 was introduced to cover empty high-pressure steel cylinders used in fire extinguishers when declared as parts.

(42) Zhejiang Winner claimed that the empty fire extinguishers covered by TARIC codes 8424 10 00 11 and 8424 10 00 21 and empty fillable or refillable high-pressure seamless steel cylinders covered by the CN codes 7311 00 11 , 7311 00 13 , 7311 00 19 , and 7311 00 30 were distinct products belonging to separate sectors, with different uses, having their separate markets, having different physical characteristics and functions in different industries, which thus required a separate injury assessment.

(43) Ruiying, claimed that empty fire extinguishers should be excluded from the scope of the Commission’s investigation. Should empty fire extinguishers be part of the scope, Ruiying argued that a separate assessment and injury calculation should be carried out to reflect the distinction between the empty seamless cylinders and empty fire extinguishers.

(45) In its reply to the submission made after provisional disclosure, the complainants disagreed with the claim that HPSC and empty fire extinguishers were two fundamentally distinct types of products and disagreed that a separate injury assessment should be conducted for each sector individually, arguing instead that both fall within the same product scope and share comparable physical, technical, and/or chemical characteristics, warranting a single, integrated injury analysis.

(46) The Commission concluded in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation that the scope of this investigation was subject to the definition of the product under investigation as contained in Section 2 of the Notice of Initiation. Consequently, empty fire extinguishers that shared the same physical and chemical characteristics as high-pressure seamless cylinders were considered to fall within the scope of the product under investigation.