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

• (142) Ruiying argued that its exports under CN code starting with 7311 only started in 2025 and involved minimal volumes, which were insufficient to cause injury. Zhejiang Winner contended that some of its product control numbers (PCNs) did not correspond to any PCN produced by the Union industry, suggesting that these imports could not have contributed to the injury, and implying the non-existence of production of empty fire extinguishers in the Union.

• (143) The Commission determined that these claims lacked factual basis. Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, the assessment of injury is based on the overall effect of dumped imports on the Union industry, taking into account total import volumes, prices, and market trends over the investigation period. The analysis does not focus on individual exporters or isolated PCNs but rather on the aggregate impact of all dumped imports. The absence of PCNs matching, accounting for 37 % of the cases, does not imply that the Union industry did not produce comparable products, nor does it negate the impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the Union industry. PCNs may differ due to variations in technical specifications, sizes, or product variants; however, they fall within the same product scope and compete in the same markets. Likewise, the late start and relatively small volume of Ruiying’s imports do not eliminate the cumulative effect of Chinese imports during the period considered. Even imports commencing later in the period can contribute to injury through price suppression, market displacement, or anticipation effects, which negatively affected Union producers’ sales, pricing strategies, and profitability.

• (144) The Commission noted that, although only 63 % of the PCNs of the sampled Chinese exporting producers matched those of the sampled Union producers, the vast majority of Chinese imports corresponded to PCNs produced by the Union industry, demonstrating a substantial overlap in product types. This confirmed that most dumped imports were directly competing with the models manufactured by the Union industry. The use of PCN ensures like-with-like comparisons, meaning that HPSC are only compared with products sharing the same key characteristics, such as capacity, pressure rating, steel type, and certification, thereby guaranteeing that the assessment of injury and dumping is accurate, representative, and reflective of actual market competition. The proportion of unmatched PCNs (37 % of unmatching) reflects differences in product variants or specialised niche products and does not indicate a lack of production capacity or capability on the part of the Union industry to manufacture the full range of HPSC.

• (145) Zhejiang Winner and Ruiying also argued that other factors, including fluctuations in raw material, energy, and labour costs, competition from third-country imports, and changes in Union consumption – were the primary drivers of the Union industry’s economic difficulties.

• (146) The Commission disagreed with this assertion and reconfirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 251 to 268 of the provisional Regulation, in which it also examined other factors, including fluctuations in raw material, energy, and labour costs, competition from third-country imports, and changes in Union consumption.

• (147) While unit production costs increased over the period considered, reflecting higher raw material, energy, and labour expenses, the Union industry was unable to pass these cost increases on to customers due to the sustained price pressure from dumped Chinese imports. The partial decrease in costs observed during the IP did not materially improve the financial situation of Union producers whereby rising costs alone cannot account for the significant deterioration in profitability. On the contrary, the significant decrease in average import prices clearly lead to a deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry.

• (148) Similarly, imports from other third countries during the period considered were largely stable or even declined, and their market shares did not increase in any way that could have materially harmed the Union industry. Operators from these countries focused on maintaining existing market positions rather than aggressively expand their presence on the Union market. While import prices from third countries were occasionally lower than in previous years, the import volume at stake was insufficient to break or even attenuate the causal link.

• (149) Union consumption grew by approximately 15 % over the period considered. Despite this expansion in demand, the Union industry experienced marked losses in production and sales, further demonstrating that changes in overall consumption could not explain the injury suffered or attenuate the causal link.

• (150) Accordingly, the Commission concluded that these arguments are unfounded and that the dumped imports from China were the main cause of injury to the Union industry. Taken together, the timing, magnitude, and pattern of the Union industry’s economic decline align closely with the surge in dumped imports from China, confirming that these imports were the primary and decisive cause of the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (151) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

• (152) In the present case, the complainant alleged the existence of raw material distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. As set out in recitals 286 to 293 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission provisionally concluded that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2a) were fulfilled. Since no interested party submitted comments contesting these findings, the Commission confirmed its conclusions regarding the existence of raw material distortions within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

6.1.   Examination of the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry

6.1.1.   General comment on the use of pieces in the injury analysis at provisional stage

• (153) Zhejiang Winner claimed that the use of ‘pieces’ as the unit of measurement distorted the calculation of the injury margin because its small portable fire extinguishers are not comparable in size or weight to larger industrial high-pressure seamless cylinders (HPSC). It therefore suggested that the analysis should be based on weight rather than on units.

• (154) This claim was rejected. In the ordinary course of trade, empty high-pressure seamless cylinders are sold, invoiced, and priced per unit, not by weight. The market does not value HPSC according to their mass, but rather according to a range of technical and commercial parameters, including the steel grade, design pressure, manufacturing precision, surface treatment, threading, valve configuration, and required certifications (such as PED or TPED). These characteristics determine the HPSC’s performance, compliance, and market value far more directly than its weight.

• (155) Furthermore, the PCNs used in the investigation already capture the key physical and technical features of the HPSC, including capacity, pressure tolerance, steel type, and intended use. This granularity ensures that like is compared with like within each PCN, and that differences in size, application, or design are appropriately reflected in the comparison.

• (156) However, for completeness, the Commission also carried out a comparison in weight per PCN between Chinese and Union products. This analysis confirmed that Chinese exported HPSC were generally heavier than comparable Union-produced ones. Accordingly, if the analysis were based on weight, it would in fact result in higher injury margins.

• (157) The use of ‘pieces’ as the unit of measurement therefore remained methodologically sound and representative of market realities while the use of PCNs ensured a robust like-for-like comparison between products.

6.1.2.   Injury margin

• (158) The Commission notes that clerical errors were identified in the provisional Regulation, specifically in the tables in recitals 282 and 309. In particular, the underselling margin for BTIC should have read 21 % instead of 48 % and the underselling margin for other cooperating companies should have been 175,4 %. These corrections were indicated in the cover letter (AD724 Disclosure Letter) sent to all parties and filed in the open case file.

• (159) In recitals 273 to 283 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission set out the methodology used to establish the margins adequate to remove the injury suffered by the Union industry. As no comments were received concerning the determination of the underselling margin, the Commission confirmed its conclusions and methodology as set out in those recitals.

6.1.3.   Comparison between dumping margin and underselling margin

• (160) In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the margin of dumping provisionally established would be higher than the margin adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. To this effect, the Commission compared the weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers with the target price of the Union industry. The result of these calculations is shown in the table below:

• (161) In accordance Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission concluded in the provisional Regulation that the appropriate level to remove injury should be the dumping margin.

• (162) Since the underselling margin for exporting producer BTIC Group was lower than the dumping margin, the Commission assessed whether there were distortions on raw materials with regard to the product concerned, pursuant to Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation

6.2.   Raw material distortions

• (163) In the absence of comments concerning raw material distortions, recitals 287 to 294 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

6.2.1.   Union interest under Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation

• (164) The BTIC Group argued that the Commission should have applied the lesser duty rule, noting that the injury margin established at 21 % was considerably lower than their provisional dumping margin of 90,3 %. According to the company, this indicated that a duty based on the injury margin would be sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the Union industry. It further claimed that a duty based on the full dumping margin would effectively exclude the company from the Union market and provide excessive protection to the Union industry, potentially creating a dominant position to the detriment of downstream users. BTIC also contended that the non-application of the lesser duty rule under Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation should not be automatic, even in cases where raw material distortions are found, referring to other investigations, such as that concerning hot-rolled stainless steel from China, where the Commission applied the lesser duty rule despite similar claims.

• (165) The Commission carefully assessed these arguments and found them to be unfounded. As established in recitals 287 to 294 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission provisionally determined, and now confirms, that the conditions for the application of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation were met. The investigation demonstrated the existence of significant distortions affecting the costs and prices of key raw materials used in the production of HPSC in China. In such circumstances, Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation provides that the lesser duty rule shall not be applied, as these distortions prevent market forces from operating normally and thus undermine the reliability of price and cost comparisons.

• (166) Pursuant to Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission has actively sought information from interested parties in order to determine whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury. In doing so, the Commission has considered all pertinent information, including spare capacities in the exporting country, competition for raw materials, and the effects on the supply chains of Union companies.

• (167) However, in the absence of cooperation from users or importers, and in accordance with Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission has concluded that it is in the Union’s interest to apply paragraph 7(2a).

• (168) The Commission further rejected the assertion that a duty corresponding to the dumping margin would provide excessive protection or distort competition in favour of the Union industry. The purpose of anti-dumping measures is to re-establish fair trading conditions and remove the injurious effects of dumped imports, not to confer an advantage on the Union industry. Applying the full dumping margin ensures that the identified distortions are properly neutralised and that competition in the Union market is restored on a fair and sustainable basis.

• (169) Finally, the Commission noted that the reference made by BTIC to other investigations, such as hot-rolled stainless steel from China, is not relevant. Each investigation is based on its own facts and market circumstances. In the present case, the evidence of state-induced raw material distortions warranted the non-application of the lesser duty rule in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

• (170) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the conditions for disapplying the lesser duty rule were met and therefore confirmed that definitive measures should be based on the full dumping margins established for the cooperating exporting producers.

• (171) In the absence of any other comment concerning Union interest under Article 7(2b), recitals 295 to 308 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

6.2.2.   Conclusion on Union interest under Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation

• (172) Considering the above, the Commission confirmed the conclusions in recital 308 of the provisional Regulation that there were no compelling reasons to come to the conclusion that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of HPSC originating in the PRC.

6.3.   Conclusion on the level of measures

• (173) Following the above assessment, definitive anti-dumping duties should be set as below in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation:

7. UNION INTEREST

7.1.   Interest of users, consumers or suppliers.

• (174) EUROFEU argued that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on HPSC would not be in the Union interest. It claimed that the measures would jeopardise the security of supply, lead to excessive cost increases for downstream users, and create disruptions due to lengthy certification procedures required when changing suppliers.

• (175) The Commission carefully examined these claims and found them to be unfounded. The investigation established that there are no indications of a risk to the security of supply. Union producers possess the technical capability and are willing to allocate capacity to the fire-protection segment once fair market conditions are restored. The current lack of domestic sourcing by the fire protection sector results primarily from the price depression caused by dumped imports from China, which discouraged Union production over time.

• (176) Furthermore, the Commission observed that the size of the HPSC market for fire-extinguisher applications had been overstated. Figures provided by interested parties included welded and aluminium cylinders, which are outside the product scope of this investigation. The relevant segment covered by the investigation therefore represents only a limited share of total demand. In addition, several third countries, such as the United States, India, Turkey, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates were found to have sufficient spare capacity to supply the Union market at fair prices if required. Experience also shows that Chinese exports to the Union have continued even after the imposition of duties in comparable cases, albeit at non-injurious price levels.

• (177) While the imposition of duties may entail cost increases for downstream users, this burden was considered proportionate to the benefits of restoring fair competition, securing reliable supply, and enabling Union producers to regain sustainable production and market share.

• (178) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the adoption of definitive measures would not endanger the security of supply but would instead restore fair competition and strengthen the resilience of the Union industry. The arguments put forward by EUROFEU were therefore rejected.

• (179) Following final disclosure, HYDAC submitted an end use exemption request, claiming that its bladder accumulator shells are distinct from other HPSC products, not readily interchangeable, and insufficiently available in the Union market.

• (180) HYDAC argued that its shells are partly custom-made, adapted to specific operating conditions, with customized valves, coatings, and materials, and that assembly, testing, and documentation add significant value. It further noted compliance with international standards including PED, ASME, SELO, DNV, and Lloyds Register. HYDAC further claimed that its shells are not interchangeable due to unique drawings, part numbers, and customized assembly and interfaces. HYDAC also asserted limited availability in the Union, citing unsuccessful sourcing attempts, low supplier capacity, and reliance on non-EU producers.

• (181) At the outset, the Commission noted that HYDAC did not provide a sufficiently detailed description of the products for which it claimed an end use exemption.

• (182) The Commission also noted that, while the shells of HYDRAC as described by the company involve customization and additional processing, they do not alter the fundamental physical, technical, or functional characteristics of the shells, which remain standard pressure vessels containing a bladder for hydraulic energy storage. Such features, while affecting customization and added value, do not change the essential characteristics of the shells and do not prevent substitution with other HPSC products and thus do not restrict sourcing from alternative sources. In this regard, the Commission noted that the company did not submit a questionnaire reply and that its cooperation was limited to the submission of comments that were not supported by evidence demonstrating the alleged unavailability of such products on the Union market. The investigation revealed a contrario that the products at stake were manufactured by the Union industry.

• (183) In light of the above, the Commission concluded that the end use exemption submitted by HYDAC was incomplete as far as the product to be covered is concerned and that its claim regarding lack of availability was unsubstantiated. The end use exemption request was therefore rejected.

7.2.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (184) In the absence of any further comments regarding Union interest, the Commission confirmed its provisional conclusions set out in recitals 310 to 324 of the provisional Regulation and definitively concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on HPSC imported from China is warranted and not against the Union interest.

8. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

8.1.   Definitive measures

• (185) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports of the product concerned.

• (186) On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:

• (187) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation in respect to these companies. These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the product under investigation originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in People’s Republic of China’.

• (188) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission [^ntr20-L_202600244EN.000101-E0020]. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (189) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in People’s Republic of China’.

• (190) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this Regulation, the customs authorities of Member States should carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (191) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume, in particular after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated, provided that the conditions for doing so are met. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (192) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but also to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

• (193) Exporting producers that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period should be able to request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the IP; (ii) it is not related to an exporting producer that did so; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities.

• (194) Statistics of HPSC frequently expressed in number of pieces. However, there is no such supplementary unit for HPSC specified for all specific CN codes applicable for the product concerned in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 [^ntr21-L_202600244EN.000101-E0021]. It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of pieces for the imports of the product concerned must be entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. Pieces should be indicated for CN and TARIC codes.

8.2.   Definitive collection of the provisional duties

• (195) In view of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected up to the levels established under the present Regulation.

8.3.   Retroactive collection

• (196) As mentioned in section 1.2, the Commission made imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.

• (197) During the definitive stage of the investigation, the data collected in the context of the registration was assessed. The Commission analysed whether the criteria under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation were met for the retroactive collection of definitive duties.

• (198) The Commission’s analysis showed no further substantial rise in imports in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period, as prescribed by Article 10(4)(d) of the basic Regulation. For this analysis, the Commission compared the monthly average import volumes of the product concerned during the investigation period with the monthly average import volumes during the period from the month following the initiation of this investigation until the last full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures. Also, when comparing the monthly average import volumes of the product concerned during the investigation period with the monthly average import volumes during the period from the month following the initiation of this investigation (i.e. 6 December 2024) until the last full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures (i.e. July 2025), no further substantial increase could be observed:

9. FINAL PROVISION

• (199) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council [^ntr22-L_202600244EN.000101-E0022], when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

• (200) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1711 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.

Article 3

Article 1 (2) may be amended to add new exporting producers from the People’s Republic of China and make them subject to the appropriate weighted average anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. A new exporting producer shall provide evidence that:

• (a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) during the period of investigation (1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024);

• (b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, and which could have cooperated in the original investigation; and

• (c) it has either actually exported the product concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 February 2026.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

[^ntr1-L_202600244EN.000101-E0001]: OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.

[^ntr2-L_202600244EN.000101-E0002]: Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ C, C/2024/7403, 6.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7403/oj).

[^ntr3-L_202600244EN.000101-E0003]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/531 of 24 March 2025 making imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L, 2025/531, 25.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/531/oj).

[^ntr4-L_202600244EN.000101-E0004]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1711 of 4 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of high-pressure seamless steel cylinders originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/1711, 5.8.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1711/oj).

[^ntr5-L_202600244EN.000101-E0005]: Recitals 42 to 57 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2163 of 14 August 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/2163, 16.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/2163/oj).

[^ntr6-L_202600244EN.000101-E0006]: Clause 4.3 (Arrangement of stamp marking), Table 1 (Stamp markings), position 23, optional stamp markings are permitted.

[^ntr9-L_202600244EN.000101-E0009]: https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-39/kurul-kararlari (→ Press releases → select Electricity electricity market board decisions).

[^ntr10-L_202600244EN.000101-E0010]: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr (→ Press releases → select Natural Gas prices).

[^ntr12-L_202600244EN.000101-E0012]: AD724_HPSC_2nd Note on sources for the determination of the normal value (t25.003184).

[^ntr13-L_202600244EN.000101-E0013]: TurkStat, Labour cost indices, 2009-2024 [2021 = 100] / (https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Labour-Input-Indices-Quarter-I:-January-March,-2024-53682&dil=2).

[^ntr15-L_202600244EN.000101-E0015]: See İTHALATTA HAKSIZ REKABETİN ÖNLENMESİNE İLİŞKİN TEBLİĞ (TEBLİĞ No 2022/19).

[^ntr16-L_202600244EN.000101-E0016]: Recital 177 of the provisional Regulation: ‘The 5 % notional profit, was in line with the profit deducted in other recent steel cases concerning products integrating steel inputs in the absence of cooperation of unrelated importers’ such as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1915 of 11 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of mobile access equipment originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/1915, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1915/oj) (see recital 252).

[^ntr17-L_202600244EN.000101-E0017]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1151 of 11 June 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of vanillin originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2025/1151, 12.6.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1151/oj).

[^ntr18-L_202600244EN.000101-E0018]: Case T-26/12, PT Musim Mas v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2015:437.

[^ntr19-L_202600244EN.000101-E0019]: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas is a company established in Medan (Indonesia).

[^ntr20-L_202600244EN.000101-E0020]: Email: TRADE-TDI-NAME-CHANGE-REQUESTS@ec.europa.eu; European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate G, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 170, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

[^ntr21-L_202600244EN.000101-E0021]: Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1987/2658/oj).

[^ntr22-L_202600244EN.000101-E0022]: Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj).

ANNEX

Cooperating exporting producers originating in the People’s Republic of China not sampled

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2026/244/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)