Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/428 of 25 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 (2) (‘the original Regulation’), the Commission imposed anti-dumping duties (‘the original measures’) on imports of steel road wheels (‘SRW’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) which was amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1165 (3) (‘the amending Regulation’).

(2) The anti-dumping duties ranged between 50,3 % and 66,4 %.

(3) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force (4), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(4) The request for review was submitted on 4 December 2024 by the Association of European Wheel Manufacturers (‘EUWA’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of steel road wheels in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation (‘the request’). The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures against imports originating in the PRC would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

(5) 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 3 March 2025 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports into the Union of steel road wheels originating in the PRC (‘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 (5) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(6) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 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’).

(7) 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, known importers, users, traders as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate. The Commission also informed the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘the GOC’) and provided it with a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in China within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation.

(8) 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. None of the interested parties requested a hearing.

(9) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(10) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission had selected the sample on the basis of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union during the review investigation period, whilst account was also taken of geographical spread. This sample consisted of three Union producers located in three Member States, collectively representing more than 40 % of the estimated total volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union.

(11) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the sample was representative of the Union industry, and it confirmed the sample on 11 March 2025. The Commission instructed the sampled Union producers to reply to the questionnaire that had been made available online (6) on the day of initiation.

(12) The sampled Union producers as well as the other Union producers participating in this investigation had requested the Commission that their identity is kept confidential throughout the proceeding, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation, on grounds of a fear of retaliatory measures by some of their customers. The Commission, based on good cause shown in the request, accepted to grant anonymity to the Union producers.

(13) 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.

(14) No unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Hence, the Commission decided that sampling of unrelated importers was not necessary.

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

(16) None of the producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore considered that no producers in China cooperated with the investigation.

(17) The Commission did not receive any reply to the questionnaire for the GOC referred to in recital (7). Therefore, there was no cooperation from the GOC.

(18) Questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled Union producers.

(20) Moreover, the Commission carried out a remote cross-check of the questionnaire reply of Company 3 and a verification of the macro-indicators submitted by the applicant at its premises.

(21) On 8 January 2026, 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 make comments on the disclosure.

(22) No comments were received.

(25) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC, currently falling under CN codes ex 8708 70 10 , ex 8708 70 99 and ex 8716 90 90 (TARIC codes 8708 70 10 80, 8708 70 10 85, 8708 70 99 20, 8708 70 99 80, 8716 90 90 95 and 8716 90 90 97) (‘the product concerned’).

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

(28) During the review investigation period, i.e. from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, imports of steel road wheels from PRC continued, albeit at low levels. They held a market share below 1 % throughout the period considered (0,8 % in the review investigation period) whereas their market share had reached 5,3 % in the investigation period of the original investigation.

(29) As mentioned in recital (16), none of the exporting producers from the PRC cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that, due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and base its findings on continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in respect of the exporters/producers in the PRC on the facts available. The Commission did not receive any comments or claims from the GOC regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(30) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were' based on facts available, in particular on the information provided in the review request and the statistics based on the data reported to the Commission by the Member States in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation (‘the Article 14(6) database’). In addition, the Commission used other sources of publicly available information such as the World Bank, the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’), the Orbis Bureau van Dijk (‘Orbis’) database and statistics obtained from the Turkish Statistical Institute database (‘TUIK’) and the Turkish Energy Market Regulatory Authority (‘EMRA’).

(31) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to China, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(32) In order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. As mentioned in recital (17), no questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, on 15 July 2025, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in China.

(33) In point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also specified that, in view of the evidence available, it may need to select an appropriate representative country pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation for the purpose of determining the normal value based on undistorted prices or benchmarks. The Commission further stated that it would examine other possibly appropriate countries in accordance with the criteria set out in first indent of Article 2(6a) of the Basic regulation.

(34) On 11 September 2025, the Commission informed interested parties by a note on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In that note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of steel road wheels (‘the FOP Note’). In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Türkiye as an appropriate representative country. The Commission received no comments on the FOP Note.

(35) According to Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation, ‘the normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country’.

(36) However, according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘in case it is determined […] that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b), the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks’, and ‘shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount of administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’ (‘administrative, selling and general costs’ is referred to hereinafter as ‘SG&A costs’).

(37) As further explained below, the Commission concluded in the present investigation that, based on the evidence available, and in view of the lack of cooperation of the GOC and the exporting producers, the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was appropriate.

(38) In recent investigations concerning the steel sector in the PRC (8), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.

(39) In those investigations, the Commission found that there is substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles (9). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the steel sector, which is the main raw material to produce the product under investigation, not only does a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persist in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), first indent of the basic Regulation (10), but the GOC is also in a position to interfere with prices and costs through State presence in firms in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), second indent of the basic Regulation (11). The Commission further found that the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials and inputs have an additional distorting effect on the market. Indeed, overall, the system of planning in the PRC results in resources being concentrated in sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the GOC, rather than being allocated in line with market forces (12). Moreover, the Commission concluded that the Chinese bankruptcy and property laws do not work properly in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fourth indent of the basic Regulation, thus generating distortions in particular when maintaining insolvent firms afloat and when allocating land use rights in the PRC (13). In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the steel sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation (14), as well as distortions in the financial markets in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), sixth indent of the basic Regulation, in particular concerning access to capital for corporate actors in the PRC (15).

(40) Like in previous investigations concerning the steel sector in the PRC, the Commission examined in the present investigation whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission did so on the basis of the evidence available on the file, including the evidence contained in the complaint, as well as in the Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations (16) (‘Report’), which relies on publicly available sources. That analysis covered the examination of the substantial government interventions in the PRC’s economy in general, but also the specific market situation in the relevant sector including the product under investigation. The Commission further supplemented these evidentiary elements with its own research on the various criteria relevant to confirm the existence of significant distortions in the PRC as also found by its previous investigations in this respect.

(41) The request provided examples of elements pointing to the existence of distortions, as listed in the first to sixth indent of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation, and alleged that market conditions, in particular costs and prices, in Chinese steel industry are not driven by market forces of supply and demand, but instead are distorted by State intervention in the economy.

(43) In conclusion, the request concluded that the systemic distortions present in the People’s Republic of China affect the entire steel value chain, including steel road wheels. These distortions extend across all key production factors – such as raw materials, energy, land, financing, and labour. As government interventions are pervasive throughout the country, the entire Chinese steel sector is equally subject to significant non-market distortions.

(44) In the Chinese steel sector, a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persists. Many of the largest steel producers are owned by the State. Examples of SOEs active in the steel sector include: the Ansteel Group (24) and the Baowu Steel Group (25), which are both SOEs under the central State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (‘SASAC’); the Baotou Steel Group, an SOE owned by the Inner Mongolian Government (26); as well as the Shougang Group (27), an SOE wholly owned by the Beijing State-Owned Asset Management Ltd (28).

(45) Furthermore, the latest Chinese policy documents concerning the steel sector confirm the continued importance which the GOC attributes to the sector, including the intention to intervene in the sector to shape it in line with government policies. This is exemplified by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (‘MIIT’) Guiding Opinion on Fostering a High-Quality Development of the Steel Industry, which calls for further consolidation of the industrial foundation and significant improvement in the modernisation level of the industrial chain (29), including the supply of special steel, an input used to produce the product under investigation. Specifically, this Guiding Opinion requires to ‘[p]romote mergers and reorganizations of enterprises. Encourage leading enterprises in the industry to implement mergers and reorganizations and create a number of world-class super-large steel enterprise groups. Relying on the industry's dominant enterprises, cultivate 1 to 2 specialized leading enterprises in the fields of stainless steel, special steel, (…).’ Further, it explicitly requires to ‘[S]upport steel companies to target the upgrading of downstream industries and the development direction of strategic emerging industries, focus on the development of small batches and multiple varieties of key steels such as high-quality special steels, special alloy steels for high-end equipment, and steel for core basic parts’ (30).

(46) Another example of the GOC’s intention to intervene in the steel sector can be found in the 14th Five-Year Plan on Developing the Raw Material Industry (‘14th FYP’) according to which the sector will ‘adhere to the combination of market leadership and government promotion’ and will ‘cultivate a group of leading companies with ecological leadership and core competitiveness’ (31).