Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/276 of 5 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels, 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 9 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of sweetcorn originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘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 25 October 2024 by the Association Européenne des Transformateurs de Maïs Doux (AETMD) (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels 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) 2025/309 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 10 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. Both sampled exporting producers, the Sunflower group and Tongfa group, filed written submissions making their views known on alleged clerical errors in the calculation of their dumping margins. The Commission found some of the claims justified and adjusted the dumping margins accordingly.

(5) On 8 August 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels, originating in the People’s Republic of China by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1723 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(6) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), the complainant, the Sunflower group, the Tongfa group, the China Chamber of Commerce of Import & Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce & Animal By-Products (‘CFNA’), representing exporting producers (5), and Frucom, an association of Union importers and traders of food products which includes sweetcorn 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. A hearing took place with Frucom.

(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 when 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 certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels, 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. CFNA and Tongfa group made comments on the final disclosure.

(10) In the absence of comments concerning the initiation of the proceeding, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 6 to 28 of the provisional Regulation

(11) In the absence of comments concerning the sampling of exporting producers in China, Union producers and unrelated importers, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 29 to 34 of the provisional Regulation.

(12) In the absence of comments, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 35 to 39 of the provisional Regulation.

(13) In the absence of comments concerning the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation relating to the existence of significant distortions in China, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 40 of the provisional Regulation.

(14) Further comments were received from Sunflower Group and Tongfa Group in relation to recitals 41 and 42 of the provisional Regulation. These comments have been considered under sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below.

(15) In the absence of comments, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 43 of the provisional Regulation

(16) The product under investigation is sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen and sweetcorn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006, currently falling under CN codes ex 2001 90 30 (TARIC code 2001 90 30 10) and ex 2005 80 00 (TARIC code 2005 80 00 10 (‘the product under investigation’).

(17) Sweetcorn is used for human consumption. The product is usually presented in a canned format, but also in glasses, tetra packs or pouches.

(18) In the absence of comments, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 44 to 48 of the provisional Regulation

(19) In the absence of further comments concerning this procedure, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 49 to 58 of the provisional Regulation.

(20) In the absence of further comments concerning the existence of significant distortions, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 62 to 152 of the provisional Regulation.

General remarks

(21) The use of Malaysia as a representative country was discussed at recitals 153 to 187 of the provisional Regulation. Following provisional disclosure, Tongfa Group and Frucom claimed that Thai company Sunsweet should be used to calculate selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) costs and profit data as it produced the product concerned and was therefore more appropriate than the Malaysian company Fraser and Neave Holdings BHD (F&N), that only produced products in the same general category. However, as explained in recitals 172 and 175 of the provisional Regulation, Thailand was excluded as a representative country due to the large quantities of imports of fresh sweetcorn and cans from China. The claim was therefore rejected.

(22) Frucom further commented that Mexico had been rejected as an appropriate representative country due to the lack of available SG&A costs and profit data from companies producing the product under investigation, and this should apply as well to Malaysia. However, as explained in recitals 176 and 181 of the provisional Regulation, the reasons for excluding Mexico were the lack of imports of fresh sweetcorn and that the available data relating to cans was not representative of cans used in food production. The claim was therefore rejected.

(23) Frucom also commented that Malaysia was not appropriate as a representative country because its prices of imports of cans may be distorted due to the influence of large quantities of Chinese imports. However, as stated in recital 177 of the provisional Regulation, there was no evidence that the prices of imports into Malaysia of cans from China had affected the prices of other imports. Indeed, the prices of cans imported into Malaysia from China (around 14 CNY per kg) were much lower than those of imports from other countries (around 28 CNY per kg). Frucom did not provide any evidence to support its claim. The claim was therefore rejected.

(24) In the absence of further comments concerning the representative country, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 153 to 187 of the provisional Regulation.

Raw materials

(25) Tongfa group claimed that the Malaysian customs nomenclature code used for cans, namely 7310 21 91 , is inappropriate to set the benchmark for the group because it excludes cans of less than 1 litre capacity, and almost all cans used by Tongfa are under 1 litre. Tongfa group requested that the Commission identify a code explicitly covering the type of cans used by Tongfa or, if this is not possible, use the import data under the 6-digit HS subheading 7310 21 which definitely covers the cans used by Tongfa.

(26) It is correct that code 7310 21 91 of the Malaysian customs nomenclature (6) covers cans of tinplate with a capacity of less than 50 litres, other than those with a capacity of less than 1 litre. The latter would fall under code 7310 21 11 . However, there were no imports at all under code 7310 21 11 into Malaysia in the investigation period. The rest of imports into Malaysia under HS subheading 7310 21 relate to products other than cans such as tanks or casks of steel with a capacity of more than 50 litres. Furthermore, the Commission observed that Tongfa group did not use only cans under 1 litre but also other types of cans. Therefore, 7310 21 91 , that covers only cans, is the most appropriate code for the cans used in sweetcorn production, while using the import price under HS subheading 7310 21 would only render the benchmark inappropriate as it would no longer relate to the products used in production of sweet corn. The claim was therefore rejected.

(27) Following final disclosure, Tongfa group claimed that the Commission should use the average import price into Thailand under Thai customs code 7310 21 11 , that exclusively covers cans under 1 litre (7). To support their claim, they referred to recent Commission practice (8) where the Commission had used a different country than the representative country to establish the benchmark for some factors of production, and to the fact that the majority of imports of cans into Thailand under that code are from countries other than China.

(28) Article 2(6a)(a), first indent, of the basic Regulation states that the sources the Commission may use for constructing normal value include corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant data are readily available. As explained in recital 175 of the provisional Regulation, Thailand was rejected as a potential appropriate representative country due to the large quantities of imports from China of fresh sweetcorn and cans which make up around 75 % of the cost of manufacturing. Consequently, the Commission considered that it could not use imports into Thailand to establish the benchmarks for the normal value. Moreover, imports under Malaysian customs code 7310 21 91 corresponded to the cost of production in the country concerned because that code exclusively covered cans of tinplate, which was the input used by both exporting producers sampled in this investigation and, since the Commission used the average price per kilogram imported into Malaysia, the benchmark was appropriate for the corresponding costs of production for all cans regardless of their capacity. Tongfa group did not provide any evidence to the contrary. For all the reasons above, the Commission rejected the claim.

Labour

(29) Following provisional disclosure, Tongfa Group claimed that its methodology to calculate labour hours was explained at the verification using worksheets and company files and was more precise than the method imposed by the Commission i.e. an allocation based on canned weights.

(30) As explained at recitals 207 to 209 of the provisional Regulation, the calculation of labour hours made by the Tongfa Group could not be accepted because it was only supported by data in spreadsheets which did not constitute a verifiable system. The actual system presented at the verification attempted to directly allocate labour to the product under investigation, but it could not be linked to the company’s accounting system. The labour hours reported under this system were very low compared to the number of hours recorded for similar canned products. No explanation was provided by Tongfa Group for this anomaly. Consequently, on the basis of facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the Commission used an apportionment based on the quantity produced of the product under investigation as compared to all canned products, as Tongfa group itself used for other factors of production (e.g. energy). The Tongfa group provided no new evidence that would support its claim. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

Electricity

(31) Following provisional disclosure, the Sunflower group claimed that the inclusion of electricity into consumables for Sunflower was unreasonable, because electricity is not a raw material, the Commission had established a benchmark for electricity and, moreover, for Sunny the Commission did not treat electricity as a consumable and used the benchmark.

(32) As explained in recitals 190 and 194 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission included some factors of production into consumables because they represented a negligible share of total raw material costs in the investigation period. This approach is justified based on the share of each factor of production, of which electricity is one, in the total manufacturing cost of a company, regardless of whether the Commission had established a benchmark. This was the case for electricity for Sunflower. For Sunny the situation was different as electricity represented a bigger share of their total costs. The claim was therefore rejected.

Manufacturing overhead costs, SG&A costs and profits

(33) Following provisional disclosure, the Sunflower Group claimed that the adjustment the Commission applied to calculate their manufacturing overheads was erroneous and lacked legal basis. Concretely, it claimed that the Commission did not apply the actual ratio of manufacturing overheads to direct manufacturing costs incurred by Sunflower and Sunny during the investigation period, that originate from their financial records and had been verified by the Commission, but instead adjusted this ratio by referencing data only for Sunny and outside the investigation period. They further claimed that applying the companies’ actual overhead ratios to the undistorted benchmark prices would inherently reflect undistorted overhead costs.

(34) The Commission found the claim justified and revised the dumping calculation for Sunflower accordingly. Consequently, the revised calculation of overheads reflects the actual percentage for Sunflower in the investigation period.

(35) As explained at recital 21, following provisional disclosure Tongfa Group challenged the use of F&N in Malaysia as a source for to calculate SG&A costs and profit data. The above recital confirmed the rejection of Thailand as a representative country. In addition, Tongfa Group claimed that F&N is not an appropriate source of SG&A costs and profit data as it did not produce the product concerned. However, as explained at recital 169 of the provisional Regulation F&N manufactures products in the same general category as the product under investigation, i.e. food and drink products including canned products and as such these products are not vastly different from the product under investigation. In any event, Tongfa Group provided no evidence that would render the amounts based on the SG&A costs and profit rates established for F&N unreasonable. This claim was therefore rejected.

(36) In the absence of further comments concerning the sources used to establish undistorted costs, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 188 to 213 of the provisional Regulation.

(37) In the absence of comments concerning the export price, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recitals 214 to 216 of the provisional Regulation.

(38) In the absence of further comments concerning adjustments made to the normal value, the Commission confirmed the conclusions set out in recital 218 of the provisional Regulation.

(39) Following provisional disclosure, the Tongfa group claimed that the Commission should use Fujian Tongfa Foods Group Co., Ltd. (‘FT’) actual profit/loss, as it did with SG&A costs instead of the profit of an unrelated trader for the adjustment under article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. Concretely, the company claimed that FT only serves as an intermediate invoicing party between Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry Co., Ltd. (‘ZT’), the producer, and unrelated EU customers and the net invoice value of FT to ZT is the same as ZT and therefore, FT must be considered at the scale of the integrated Tongfa Group, not as an independent, profit-driven and typical trader.

(40) According to the framework contract between both parties provided by the Tongfa group in the course of the investigation, FT is responsible for signing customer contracts, customer negotiations, collecting payment from customers, or dealing with export tax refund procedures and tax refund collection. Such functions are similar to those performed by an agent working on a commission basis. Furthermore, the individual invoices for each sales transaction were subject to an arbitration clause between ZT and FT, demonstrating lack of economic solidarity and which would not be appropriate if FT was simply operating as a fully integrated sales department.

(41) The investigation also established that FT cannot be considered as a fully integrated sales department within the group as ZT exported the product concerned directly to the Union and other countries in 2021, 2022 and 2023, and to countries other than the Union during the IP. It follows that ZT has its own operational sales department. On this basis, the Commission carried out the adjustment for commissions under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. Regarding the profit used in the construction of the amount for commissions, the invoices between ZT and FT reflected intra-group transfers that did not reflect arm's length pricing. Consequently, the adjustment could not be based on those transfers. The claim was therefore rejected.

(42) Following provisional disclosure, Tongfa Group reiterated their claim that the application of Article 18 regarding the CIF value was not warranted as they allege that there was no false or misleading information. Tongfa also claimed that an arithmetic error had been made in the methodology applied by the Commission.