Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/347 of 17 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sweetcorn originating in the Kingdom of Thailand, 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 (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels currently falling under CN codes ex 2001 90 30 and ex 2005 80 00 , originating in Thailand (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’. The measure took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 3,1 % and 12,9 %.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2008 (3) amended Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 with regard to the rate of duty imposed on one company and on ‘all other companies’. The amended duties ranged between 3,1 % and 14,3 %. Imports from two Thai exporting producers from whom undertakings had been accepted by Commission Decision 2007/424/EC (4) were exempted from the duty.

(3) The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 (5), considered that price undertakings with fixed minimum import prices were no longer appropriate to counteract the injurious effect of dumping. Consequently, the accepted undertakings were withdrawn and the undertaking offers by 10 other Thai exporting producers were rejected.

(4) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 (6), the Council imposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand for another five years following an expiry review.

(5) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014 (7), following a partial interim review, the Council amended the anti-dumping duty set by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 875/2013 for River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd.

(6) Following the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 December 2017 and 28 March 2019 in Cases T-460/14 and C-144/18 P respectively, the Commission reopened (8), on 29 August 2019, the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand that had led to the adoption of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 307/2014. That investigation was reopened only in so far as it concerned River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd. and was resumed at the point at which the irregularity had occurred.

(7) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1996 (9), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand for another five years following an expiry review (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(8) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/342 (10), the Commission reimposed the definitive anti-dumping duty for River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd.

(9) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are ad valorem duty at rates ranging between 3,1 % and 14,3 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers, 12,9 % on the non-sampled cooperating companies and a duty rate of 14,3 % on all other companies from Thailand.

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

(11) The request for review was submitted on 31 August 2024 by the Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) (‘the applicant’) 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 request for a review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in the continuation or recurrence 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 29 November 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (‘the country concerned’) 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 (12) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(13) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2021 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 applicant, other known Union producers, the known producers in Thailand and the authorities of Thailand, known importers, users, and traders about the initiation of the expiry review 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) One Thai company, Malee Sampran Public Co. Ltd, informed the Commission that it had ceased the production of the product concerned. Since the company is no longer an exporting producer of the product concerned, the Commission removed it from the list of cooperating companies not sampled.

(17) 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

(18) In its 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 estimated volume of production and sales of the like product in the EU during the investigation period. This sample consisted of two Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for more than [29–38] % of the estimated total volume of production and more than [39–48] % of the estimated total sales in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments on the sample were received. The sample of the Union industry was therefore confirmed.

Sampling of importers

(19) 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.

(20) No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of producers in Thailand

(21) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all producers in Thailand to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the Kingdom of Thailand to the European Union to identify and/or contact other producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(22) Seven producers in the country concerned provided the information requested and agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission sought clarifications from two companies on inconsistencies in their replies on the sampling forms. Those two companies did not provide a reply to the request for clarification.

(23) In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two companies on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. Based on the information available at the time of the sampling decision, the exports to the EU by the sampled companies covered almost the entire exports to the EU of all cooperating companies and accounted for more than 80 % of total exports of the product concerned to the EU. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned and the authorities of the country concerned were consulted on the selection of the sample. No comments were made.

(24) The Commission requested the exporting producers, the Union producers, the unrelated importers, and the users to complete the relevant questionnaires, which were made available on the day of initiation on the Commission’s website (13) dedicated to trade defence instruments. Interested parties were also invited to make their views known and to provide supporting evidence within the deadlines set out in the Notice of Initiation.

(25) Questionnaire replies were received from the two sampled exporting producers, the two sampled Union producers and the AETMD.

(27) On 20 November 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 submit comments on the disclosure.

(28) The interested parties did not make any comments and did not request a hearing.

(29) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and in the previous two expiry reviews, namely 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’).

(30) Sweetcorn is used for human consumption. The product is usually presented in canned form, but also in glass jars, tetra packs or pouches.

(31) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in Thailand (‘the product concerned’).

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

(34) Following the initiation of the review investigation, the Department of Foreign Trade (‘DFT’) of the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand argued that the initiation itself was not warranted. The DFT claimed that imports from Thailand were minimal compared to those from another major exporting country and had decreased over the period considered. It further contended that the average import prices from that other country were significantly lower than those from Thailand. The DFT referred to Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, arguing that the conditions for initiation were not met, as there was allegedly no evidence of continuation of dumping and injury.

(35) The Commission considered these claims unfounded. The evidence contained in the request for review was sufficient to justify initiation. The Commission recalled that, under Article 11.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, evidence of continuation of dumping is not a prerequisite for initiation, and the likelihood of recurrence of dumping is sufficient. The arguments raised by the DFT concerning import volumes and price differences did not invalidate the evidence submitted by the applicant, nor did they meet the legal threshold required to prevent initiation.

(36) During the review investigation period, imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels from Thailand continued albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation (i.e. from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005). According to Eurostat’s Comext, imports of sweetcorn from Thailand accounted for about 1,3 % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 12,7 % market share during the original investigation, 6 % during the first expiry review and 3,9 % during the previous expiry review. In absolute terms, imports from Thailand amounted to 3 638 tonnes in the review investigation period. This followed a decrease in imports from 41 973 tonnes in the original investigation to 21 856 tonnes during the first expiry review and a further decrease to 13 343 tonnes in the previous expiry review.

(37) The Commission first examined whether the total volume of domestic sales for each sampled exporting producer was representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales are representative if the total domestic sales volume of the like product to independent customers on the domestic market per exporting producer represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume of the product under review to the Union during the review investigation period. On this basis, the total sales by each sampled exporting producer of the like product on the domestic market were representative.

(38) The Commission subsequently identified the product types sold domestically that were identical or comparable with the product types sold for export to the Union for the exporting producers with representative domestic sales.

(39) The Commission then examined whether the domestic sales by each sampled exporting producer on its domestic market for each product type that is identical or comparable with a product type sold for export to the Union were representative, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The domestic sales of a product type are representative if the total volume of domestic sales of that product type to independent customers during the review investigation period represents at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the identical or comparable product type to the Union. The Commission established that the domestic sales of certain product types were not representative for the sampled exporting producers.

(40) The Commission next defined the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers on the domestic market for each product type during the review investigation period in order to decide whether to use actual domestic sales for the calculation of the normal value, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.

(42) In this case, the normal value is the weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type during the review investigation period.

(44) The analysis of domestic sales showed that depending on the product type and the exporting producer, 50 % to 100 % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was higher than the cost of production. Accordingly, the normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the review investigation period or a weighted average of the profitable sales only.

(45) Where there were insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the ordinary course of trade or where a product type was not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation. Where there were no domestic sales of a product type of the like product, the Commission looked for alternative sources for prices in the ordinary course of trade. Since there were no domestic sales of the other sampled producer or the domestic sales price of the other sampled producer for that product type could not be disclosed in a meaningful manner without breaching the confidentiality of that producer, and no other sources of prices for the particular product types were available, the Commission constructed the normal value for the relevant product types in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

(47) For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG & A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, the weighted average SG & A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

(48) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union directly to independent customers.

(49) Consequently, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product under review when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(50) Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation requires the Commission to make a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price at the same level of trade and to make allowances for differences in factors which affect prices and price comparability. In the case at hand the Commission chose to compare the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers at the ex-works level of trade. As further explained below, where appropriate, the normal value and the export price were adjusted in order to: (i) net them back to the ex-works level; and (ii) make allowances for differences in factors which were claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.

(51) For sales of product types for which the normal value was constructed, as explained in recital (46) the normal value was established at the ex-works level of trade by using costs of production together with amounts for SG & A and for profit, which were considered to be reasonable for that level of trade. Therefore, no adjustments were necessary to net the normal value back to the ex-works level.

(52) For sales of product types for which there were sales in the ordinary course of trade, in order to net the normal value back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of transport. Moreover, allowances were made on the account of bank charges and commission. The Commission found no reasons for making any other allowances to the normal value.

(53) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of freight, insurance, handling loading and ancillary expenses.

(54) Allowances were made for the following factors affecting prices and price comparability: credit cost, bank charges and commissions.

(55) For the sampled exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product under review, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.