Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/734 of 26 March 2026 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of yarns of polyamide 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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 29 July 2025, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of yarns of polyamide originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘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 16 June 2025 by the Ad Hoc Coalition of European Producers of Yarns of Polyamide (‘the complainants’ or ‘the Coalition’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of yarns of polyamide 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) 2025/1984 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Chinese authorities, known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(5) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(6) The Commission received comments on initiation from two interested parties: one of the users of the product under investigation (Spitfil) and the association representing the European producers of fibres and yarns manufactured from organic polymers (CIRFS).

(7) In its comments on initiation (4) Spitfil made a general observation that certain types of polyamide yarns imported from China, used exclusively for split warping processes for warp-knitted fabrics, are not produced in the Union. The company followed later with the formal request for the product scope exclusion as described in Section 2.4 below.

(8) CIRFS in its comments on initiation (5) supported the evidence submitted in the complaint with regard to the material injury, threatening the very existence of the Union’s polyamide yarn manufacturing sector, caused by the low-priced and allegedly dumped imports from China. The association urged the Commission to ensure that the level of potential anti-dumping measures would be sufficient to fully neutralise the dumping practices and to restore a level playing field.

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

(10) 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 production and sales. This sample consisted of three Union producers and accounted for 44,4 % of the estimated total Union production and 37,4 % of estimated total Union sales quantity of the product under investigation. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.

(11) Following the provisional selection of the sample, the complainant proposed to reduce the sample to only two producers, whose production and sales volume would be still sufficiently representative. However, the Commission decided to uphold its provisional selection, taking into account also geographical spread of the sampled companies and a wider coverage of the produced product types. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

(12) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(13) No unrelated importers provided the requested information or agreed to be included in the sample. The Commission therefore did not select any sample of importers.

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

(15) 18 exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two Chinese exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. 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 submitted on the selection of the sample.

(16) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(17) Furthermore, the complainant in the complaint provided sufficient prima facie evidence of raw material distortions in the PRC regarding the product concerned. Therefore, as announced in the Notice of Initiation, the investigation covered those raw material distortions to determine whether to apply the provisions of Article 7(2a) and 7(2b) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC. For this reason, the Commission sent additional questionnaires in this regard to the GOC.

(18) The Commission also sent questionnaires to Union producers and Chinese exporting producers. The same questionnaires, as well as questionnaires for the Union importers and the Union users were made available online (6) on the day of initiation.

(20) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2022 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(21) The product subject to this investigation is synthetic continuous filament yarns of aliphatic polyamides, not put up for retail sale, including synthetic monofilament of less than 67 decitex. The product under investigation includes all variants of yarns of nylon or other aliphatic polyamides, whether textured measuring not more than 50 tex per single yarn or not textured, single, double, multiple (folded) or cabled, twisted or untwisted (‘the product under investigation’).

(22) High tenacity yarn of polyamide falling under CN code 5402 19 00 does not fall within the scope of the product under investigation.

(24) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the PRC, currently falling under CN codes 5402 31 00 , 5402 45 00 , 5402 51 00 and 5402 61 00 (‘the product concerned’).

(26) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(27) One of the users of the product under investigation, Spitfil, requested exclusion from the product scope of so-called ‘mother yarns of polyamide’, which are used for production of the monofilament yarns, claiming that mother yarns are not produced in the Union. The user repeated its request in an additional submission send well after the deadline for the comments as the latter was provided by Section 2 of the Notice of Initiation.

(28) The Commission established that mother yarn is not a finished product, but an intermediate yarn to be further processed to produce monofilament yarn of polyamide. Monofilament yarn produced from mother yarn has the same physical, chemical and technical characteristics as monofilament yarn produced by the Union industry, even if obtained through a different production method. Both product types are interchangeable and used in the same downstream applications, i.e. the warp knitting industry. Therefore, the Commission provisionally rejected the above product scope exclusion request. With regards to the second late submission of the company, it will be addressed after provisional disclosure.

(29) In view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with regard to the PRC, the Commission considered it appropriate to initiate the investigation with regard to the exporting producers from this country having regard to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(30) Consequently, in order to collect the necessary data for the eventual application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, in the Notice of Initiation the Commission invited all exporting producers in the PRC to provide information regarding the inputs used for producing the yarns of polyamide. 11 exporting producers submitted the relevant information.

(31) In order to obtain information, it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Government of China (‘GOC’). In addition, in point 5.3.2 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. 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 from any party. Subsequently, 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 the PRC.

(32) In 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.

(33) On 10 October 2025, the Commission informed by a note (‘the First Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In that note, the Commission provided a list of factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of the yarns of polyamide. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Türkiye as a possibly appropriate representative country. The Commission received comments on the First Note as mentioned in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 below.

(34) On 13 January 2026, the Commission informed by a second note (‘the Second Note’) interested parties on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value, with Türkiye as the representative country. It also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG & A’) and profits based on available information for SASA Polyester Sanayi S.A, a producer of polyester yarns in Türkiye. The Commission received comments to the Second Note as mentioned in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 below.

(35) After having analysed the comments and information received, the Commission concluded that Türkiye was an appropriate representative country from which undistorted prices and costs would be sourced for the determination of the normal value. When no representative import prices were available for a given factor of production, the Commission resorted to an appropriate international benchmark. The underlying reasons for the Commission’s approach are developed in detail in Section 3.2.4 below.

(36) 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’.

(37) 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 hereafter as ‘SG & A’).

(38) 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.

(39) In recent investigations concerning the chemical sector in the PRC (7), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present.

(40) 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 (8). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the chemical sector 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 (9), 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 (10). 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 (11). 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 (12). In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the chemical sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation (13), 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 (14).

(41) Like in previous investigations concerning the chemical 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, and 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 (15) (‘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.

(42) The complaint alleged that significant distortions exist in the Chinese polyamide yarns sector. It referred to the Report and in particular to the PRC’s economic system being a ‘socialist market economy’ and the active role of the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP’) in both the public and private sectors in the PRC (16).

(44) In conclusion, the complaint took the position that prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. On that basis, according to the complaint, it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case.

(45) The Commission examined whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and costs in China, due to the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation. That analysis covered the examination of the substantial government interventions in China’s economy in general, but also the specific market situation in the relevant sector including the product concerned.