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.

(46) In this regard, the Commission first assessed whether the polyamide yarns sector in the PRC is being served to a significant extent by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the Chinese authorities, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. The sector of the product concerned is served by both private companies, such as Fujian Eversun Jinjiang Co. Ltd (26), Highsun Holding Group (27), Yiwu Huading Nylon Co. Ltd (28) as well as by SOEs such as Shenma Industrial Co. Ltd (29), Hubei Sanning Chemical Co. Ltd (30) or Sinopec (31). The exact ratio of private versus State-owned producers in the polyamide yarns market could not be determined. However, the Commission found that several producers are directly controlled by the State. Examples include Shenma Industrial Co. Ltd (32), an SOE ultimately controlled by the Henan Provincial Government State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (33) and is the largest Chinese producer of Nylon 66 (34), a polymer used to produce polyamide yarns. Another example is Hubei Sanning Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., which is ultimately controlled by Shanxi Provincial State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (35). Also, Sinopec is an SOE controlled by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (‘SASAC’) (36).

(47) Moreover, CCP interventions into operational decision-making have become the norm, not only in SOEs but also in private companies (37), with the CCP claiming leadership over virtually every aspect of the country’s economy. Indeed, the State’s influence by means of CCP structures within companies effectively results in economic operators being under the government’s control and policy supervision, given how far the State and Party structures have grown together in China.

(48) The investigation found that the industry national association covering the chemical sector is the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation (‘CPCIF’). The CPCIF adheres to the overall leadership of the CCP, carries out Party activities, and provides necessary conditions for the activities of party organisations (38). Moreover, the ‘registration and management authority of the Association is the Ministry of Civil Affairs’ (39) and the conditions to be eligible as a representative of the CPCIF include to ‘adhere to the leadership of the CCP, support socialism with Chinese characteristics, resolutely implement the Party’s line, principles, and policies, and possess good political qualities’ (40).

(49) Eversun Holding Group Co. Ltd, which is the mother company of Fujian Eversun Jinjiang Co. Ltd, is a member of CPCIF (41) and is one of its directors. Additionally, some entities controlled by Sinopec are also members of CPCIF (42).

(50) More specifically, the investigation found that the industry national association representing the producers of polyamide yarns is the CCFA. The CCFA adheres to the overall leadership of the CCP, carries out Party activities, and provides necessary conditions for the activities of party organisations (43). Moreover, the ‘registration and management authority of the Association is the Ministry of Civil Affairs’ (44) and the conditions to be eligible as a representative of the CCFA include to ‘adhere to the leadership of the CCP, support socialism with Chinese characteristics, resolutely implement the Party’s line, principles, and policies, and possess good political qualities’ (45).

(51) Fujian Eversun Jinjiang Co., Ltd, Fujian Highsun Synthetic Fiber (which is held by Highsun Holding Group), Yiwu Huading Nylon Co., Ltd, Sinopec and Shenma Industrial Co., Ltd are all members of the CCFA (46).

(52) Both public and privately owned enterprises in the chemical sector are subject to policy supervision and guidance. The latest Chinese policy documents concerning the chemical and petrochemical 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 the government policies. This is exemplified by the Guiding Catalogue for Industrial Structure Adjustment where polyamides are listed as an industry sector encouraged by the GOC (47). Also, adipic acid, an input used to produce polyamide yarns, is listed as an encouraged sector both in the Guiding Catalogue for Industrial Structural Adjustment (48) and in the Catalogue of Encouraged Industries in the Western Regions (49). As regards caprolactam, another input to produce polyamide yarns, the GOC has a restrictive policy towards the production units with a production capacity of less than 100 000 tonnes per year (50).

(53) Furthermore, according to the 14th FYP on Economic and Social Development and 2035 Perspectives, the GOC intends to ‘accelerate the transformation and upgrading of key industries such as chemicals’ (51) .

(54) Additionally, the Guiding Opinion on Promoting the High-Quality Development of the Petrochemical and Chemical Industries during the 14th FYP (52) (‘the Guiding Opinion’) also stipulates that the GOC will ‘accelerate the transformation and upgrading of traditional industries, vigorously develop new chemical materials and fine chemicals, […]and foster China’s transition from a large petrochemical and chemical country into a strong petrochemical and chemical power. […] By 2025, […] [t]he production concentration of bulk chemical products will be further improved, and the capacity utilization rate will reach more than 80 %; the supply security of new chemical materials will reach more than 75 %’ (53) . Also, the GOC shall ‘[a]ccelerate the development of high-end polyolefins, electronic chemicals, industrial specialty gases, high-performance rubber and plastics, high-performance fibers’ and, regarding the polyamide yarns downstream industries, the GOC intends to ‘expand the variety and specifications of materials such as […] polyurethanes, and polyamides’ (54) . In addition, the GOC shall ‘[p]romote industrial structure adjustment: strengthen specific measures and scientifically regulate the scale of the industry’ (55) .

(55) More specifically, the Guiding Opinion on the High Quality Development of the Chemical Fibers Industry (56) stipulates that the GOC shall ‘[p]romote the development of a high-performance fiber and composite material innovation platform […] aim[ing] to establish a comprehensive industry chain encompassing basic chemical raw materials, high-performance fibers/high-performance polymers, composite materials and product molding and processing, product testing and evaluation, and product application’ (57).

(56) Similar examples of the intention of the Chinese authorities to supervise and guide the developments of the polyamide yarns sector can be found at the provincial level, such as in the Shandong 14th FYP on the Development of the Chemical Industry (58) seeking to ‘[c]omprehensively promote the upgrading of industrial foundation and modernization of industrial chain, accelerate the withdrawal of backward and inefficient production capacity, and promote the development of chemical products in the direction of functionalization, refinement and differentiation [and to]guide enterprises to merge and reorganize, optimize resource allocation and industrial chain structure, and improve production efficiency and profitability’ (59).

(57) This Shandong 14th FYP also specifically covers the polyamide yarns upstream and downstream industry sectors and requires ‘to highlight the leading role of chemical parks and leading enterprises, and accelerate the development of the entire industrial chain from basic chemical raw materials to high-end chemical new materials […] [and] focus on developing high-end polyolefins, polyurethanes, and polyamides, as well as high-tech, high-value-added new materials products’ (60) .

(58) Another example of the intention of the Chinese authorities to supervise and guide the developments of the polyamide yarns sector at the provincial level can be found in the Henan 14th FYP on Developing Strategic and Emerging Industries as well as Industries of the Future (61) seeking to ‘[a]ccelerate the development of the nylon new materials industry. Based on a comprehensive assessment of resource and environmental capacity, rationally expand the production of upstream raw materials such as adipic acid, caprolactam, and nylon 66 polymer’ (62).

(59) Similarly, the Chongqing 14th FYP on the High Quality Development of the Manufacturing Industry seeks ‘on the basis of local adipic acid production capacity advantages, [to] strengthen the planning and construction of products such as […] nylon 66 salt (hexamethylenediamine adipic acid salt), and nylon 66 (polyhexamethylene adipamide), and actively attract and cultivate enterprises in the fields of long-chain nylon and high-temperature resistant nylon to build a polyamide industry chain’ (63).

(60) As to the GOC being 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, the Commission found that Fujian Eversun Jinjiang Co., Ltd.’s holding company Eversun Corp. ‘has attached great importance to Party building since its establishment. Since its inception, the company’s party committee has played a leading role and continuously promoted the company’s development’ (64) . Additionally, the chairman of Eversun Corp. is also a member of the CCP (65).

(61) Furthermore, Highsun Holding Group ‘promotes the deep integration of Party building work with the Group’s development’ (66) . Additionally, the general manager of Highsun Holding Group is a member of the CCP (67).

(62) The chairman of Shenma Industrial Co., Ltd. also serves as the secretary of the Party Committee (68).

(63) In 2020, Hubei Sanning Chemical Co., Ltd developed a plan to ‘further strengthen Party building work and strive to become a leading demonstration enterprise of the party […] at the provincial level. Further, the company has ‘written the Party building work into the articles of association, insisted on taking high-quality Party building as the “root” and “soul” leading the development of the enterprise’ (69) . Also, the company’s deputy general manager serves as the secretary of the company’s Party committee (70).

(64) Similarly, Sinopec Group’s chairman of the board of directors is the secretary of the Party committee and several members of the board serve as deputy secretaries of the Party committee (71). Sinopec Group stated that it intends to ‘focus on the company's new mission and new tasks on the new journey, carry forward the party's self-revolutionary spirit, strengthen the Party’s leadership and Party building in an all-round and integrated manner, and systematically promote comprehensive and strict party governance, so as to provide a strong guarantee for writing a new chapter of China’s modern petrochemical industry’ (72).

(65) It was not possible to systematically establish the existence of personal connections between all of the Chinese polyamide yarns producers and the CCP. However, given that the product under investigation represents a subsector of the chemical sector, the Commission considered that the information established in the recent investigations concerning the chemical sector, as indicated in recital (40), is relevant also to the product under investigation.

(66) Further, policies discriminating in favour of domestic producers or otherwise influencing the market in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), third indent of the basic Regulation, are in place in the polyamide yarns sector. The Commission identified several documents demonstrating that the polyamide yarns industry benefits from the governmental guidance and intervention into the chemical sector, given that the polyamide yarns sector represents a subsector of the chemical sector. Furthermore, the Commission also found documents specifically addressing the polyamide sector.

(67) The chemical industry is consistently regarded as a key industry by the GOC (73). This is confirmed in the numerous plans, directives and other documents focused on chemicals, which are issued at national, regional, and municipal level. Under the 14th FYP, the GOC earmarked the chemical industry for optimisation and upgrade (74). Similarly, the 14th FYP on Developing the Raw Materials Industry stipulates that the GOC will ‘Optimize the organizational structure: Make leading enterprises bigger and stronger. […] [S]upport enterprises to accelerate cross-regional and cross-ownership mergers and reorganizations, increase industrial concentration, and conduct international operations. In the chemical, petrochemical, steel, non-ferrous metals, building materials and other industries, cultivate a group of leading enterprises in the industrial chain with ecological dominance and core competitiveness’ (75) .

(68) More specifically, the Changle District, located in Fuzhou Municipality (Fujian), has developed a chemical fiber industry cluster: ‘Faced with the competitive landscape of the national nylon industry, Changle District has fully implemented the “chain leader + chain cluster” development strategy. With leading enterprises such as Highsun Holding Group, Eversun Holding Group Co. Ltd, and Jinlun High Fiber driving the coordinated development of the upstream and downstream industrial chains, the district has continuously consolidated its advantages in the textile industry and formed the most complete textile industrial chain in the country, from petrochemical raw materials to chemical fibers’ (76).

(69) Furthermore, this development strategy results from various support schemes: ‘Changle's vigorous support for the clustered development of traditional manufacturing industry chains: In recent years, Changle District has implemented [projects] encouraging leading enterprises […] to accelerate the extension of their upstream and downstream industrial chains. Currently, there are 282 textile enterprises above designated size in the district, with a relatively complete industrial chain. The upstream covers the production of petrochemical raw materials, while the downstream covers to the warp knitting (lace) industry, forming a textile industry system integrating chemical fibers’ raw materials, chemical fibers, spinning, knitting, dyeing and finishing, and clothing. This year, Changle district focuses on “supporting leading enterprises, cultivating large clusters, and developing large industries,” using […] special actions as key initiatives to help Highsun Holding Group, Eversun Holding Group, […] achieve an output value of RMB 100 billion yuan’ (77).

(70) In sum, the GOC has measures in place to induce operators to comply with the public policy objectives of supporting encouraged industries, including the production of the product under investigation. Such measures impede market forces from operating freely.

(71) The present investigation has not revealed any evidence that the discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy and property laws in the chemical sector, according to Article 2(6a)(b), fourth indent of the basic Regulation would not affect the manufacturers of the product under investigation.

(72) Additionally, in the cases where the bankruptcy law is implemented, proceedings lack transparency and result in discriminatory practices (78).

(73) Further, the product under investigation is also affected by the distortions of wage costs in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation, as referred to above in recital (40). Those distortions affect the sector both directly (when producing the product under investigation or the main inputs), as well as indirectly (when having access to inputs from companies subject to the same labour system in the PRC).

(74) Moreover, no evidence was submitted in the present investigation demonstrating that the polyamide yarns sector is not affected by the government intervention in the financial system in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), sixth indent of the basic Regulation. The abovementioned Guiding Opinion requiring to ‘improve supporting policies, strengthen the coordination between fiscal, financial, regional, investment, import and export […] policies with the industry policies [to] give full play to the national cooperation platform between industry and finance and [to] foster the connection between enterprises and banks’ (79) also exemplifies this type of government intervention very well.

(75) Furthermore, on the level of allocation of financial resources, with Several Measures to Further Promote the Development of Private Investment (80), the GOC seeks to ‘increase central budget resources to support qualified private investment projects and to actively play a guiding and leading role.’ The GOC also intends to ‘make good use of new policy financial instruments [and] support a number of qualified private investment projects in important industries and key areas’ (81).

(76) Therefore, the substantial government intervention in the financial system leads to the market conditions being severely affected at all levels.

(77) Finally, the Commission recalls that in order to produce the product under investigation, a number of inputs is needed. When the producers of the product under investigation purchase/contract these inputs, the prices they pay (and which are recorded as their costs) are clearly exposed to the same systemic distortions mentioned before. For instance, suppliers of inputs employ labour that is subject to the distortions. They may borrow money that is subject to the distortions on the financial sector/capital allocation. In addition, they are subject to the planning system that applies across all levels of government and sectors.

(78) As a consequence, not only the domestic sales prices of the product under investigation are not appropriate for use within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, but all the input costs (including raw materials, energy, land, financing, labour, etc.) are also affected because their price formation is affected by substantial government intervention, as described in Parts I and II of the Report. Indeed, the government interventions described in relation to the allocation of capital, land, labour, energy and raw materials are present throughout the PRC. This means, for instance, that an input that in itself was produced in the PRC by combining a range of factors of production is exposed to significant distortions. The same applies for the input to the input and so forth.

(79) In sum, the evidence available showed that prices or costs of the product under investigation, including the costs of raw materials, land, 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, as shown by the actual or potential impact of one or more of the relevant elements listed therein.

(80) The GOC did not comment or provide evidence supporting or rebutting the existing evidence on the case file, including the Report and the additional evidence provided by the complainant, on the existence of significant distortions and/or appropriateness of the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in the case at hand.

(81) At provisional stage, the Commission did not receive any comments concerning the significant distortions affecting the polyamide yarns industry from any of the Chinese exporting producers.

(82) In view of the above, the Commission concluded that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. Consequently, the Commission proceeded to construct the normal value exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, that is, in this case, on the basis of corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, as described in the following section.

(84) As explained in recitals (33) to (34), the Commission issued two notes for the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value: the First Note on 10 October 2025 and the Second Note on 13 January 2026. These notes described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria, and also addressed the comments received by the parties on these elements and on the relevant sources. In the Second Note, the Commission informed interested parties of its intention to use Türkiye as an appropriate representative country in the present case if the existence of significant distortions pursuant to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation would be confirmed.

(85) In the First Note, the Commission identified Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand and Türkiye as countries with a similar level of economic development as the PRC according to the World Bank, i.e. they are all classified by the World Bank as ‘upper-middle income’ countries on a gross national income basis where production of the product under investigation was known to take place.

(86) In the context of this criterion, comments on the Commission’s identification of Türkiye as a potentially suitable representative country were submitted by Eversun Group. Eversun Group alleged that Türkiye was not an appropriate representative country due to its high levels of inflation in comparison to Indonesia whose economy was larger and inflation rate more stable. Furthermore, Eversun Group identified an Indonesian company PT. Ever Shine Tex Tbk, which produced the product under investigation and for which the financial statements were readily available. Eversun Group requested the Commission to consider Indonesia as a suitable representative country.

(87) In order to define which countries were at similar level of economic development as the exporting country in each case, the Commission used countries classified in the same income category by the World Bank. This database allowed the Commission to have a sufficient number of potentially suitable countries with a similar level of development to choose an appropriate representative country according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission noted that the basic Regulation does not identify the existence of inflation as a relevant criterion for the choice of the representative country. The Commission also noted that the fact that the Indonesia’s economy was larger than the Turkish economy and therefore closer to the economy of China was not a factor in the selection of the appropriate representative country according to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. The relevant World Bank category was that of the upper-middle income countries, where China was classified. With regard to the claim on inflation rate in Türkiye, the Commission noted that Eversun did not submit any evidence that the inflation rendered the determination of benchmarks unreliable. Furthermore, the Commission also noted that the import prices, which were the basis for setting benchmarks for most factors of production, were based on cross-border transactions which were usually made in other currencies than that of the importing country and hence were unaffected by inflation. Furthermore, benchmarks would be converted to the currency of the country concerned, whereby the impact of inflation, which is often related to currency devaluation, would not be significant. Therefore, this claim was dismissed.

(88) In the First Note, the Commission provided a list of factors of production such as raw materials, energy, and labour used in the production of yarns of polyamide. The Commission also noted that, with regard to the main raw materials, nylon 6 chips were the principal raw material used in the production of yarns of polyamide. Their consumption varied between [55 %–70 %] out of total materials consumed, in comparison to [20 %–35 %] of the consumption of caprolactam.

(89) The Commission subsequently analysed the imports of the main factors of production into the seven potential representative countries, i.e. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand and Türkiye. With regard to Argentina, the Commission established that there was a low level of imports of caprolactam, nylon 6 chips and POY/FDY/HOY (83) and DTY/ACY/ATY/TDY/TTY (84) yarns. With regard to Brazil, Mexico and Thailand, the Commission noted that there was a low level of imports of caprolactam. With regard to Colombia, the Commission noted that the import volumes of nylon 6 chips, POY and DTY yarns to Colombia were insufficient and that the average import price of caprolactam was affected by the Chinese imports. With regard to Indonesia, the Commission established that the import price of nylon 6 chip, the main raw material, was affected by the Chinese imports.

(90) Furthermore, the Commission investigated which financial data was readily available for the seven countries identified, i.e. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand and Türkiye, and noted that although there were producers of the yarns of polyamide in each of the potential representative countries, it could not identify any such company with readily available financial data for the determination of manufacturing overheads, SG & A and profit.

(91) The Commission however identified SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş, a producer of polyester yarns, a product in the same general category and sector of the product under investigation, as a suitable company for the purpose of calculating the SG & A and profit. The Commission received comments from Eversun Group and from the complainants.

(92) In reply to the First Note, Eversun Group submitted readily available financial information for an Indonesian producer of yarns of polyamide, PT Ever Shine Tex (85). The Commission noted that PT Ever Shine Tex was a manufacturer of nylon 6 filament yarns, nylon 6 textured and non-textured yarns and polyester fabrics.

(93) The complainants mentioned its support for the choice of the SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş’s financial statements considering it a reasonable proxy as this Turkish producer produced non-textured and textured yarns of polyester, which were used for the textile sector. The complainants alleged that the manufacturing process was similar to the one of yarns of polyamide.

(94) In the Second Note, the Commission analysed the financial data of PT Ever Shine Tex and found the company to be in principle suitable for the construction of the SG & A and profit. However, with regard to the suitability of Indonesia as a representative country, the Commission identified important blocking elements, set out in recital (95) below, which disqualified Indonesia from the being selected as a suitable representative country.

(95) With regard to nylon 6 chips, the Commission noted that sufficient quantities were imported to Indonesia, of which 48 % originated in China. The Commission observed that the average Chinese import price was 16 % lower than the average import price from the rest of the world. The Commission concluded that the import price of nylon 6 chip from the ‘rest of the world’ was likely to be affected by the imports from China and was therefore unsuitable to be applied as a benchmark in compliance with Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission analysed the import prices of the newly added factors of production (set out in recital (126)) to Indonesia and noted that 87 % of PTA was imported to Indonesia from China. The average Chinese import price was 9 % lower than the average import price from the ‘rest of the world’. The Commission subsequently established that the import price of PTA from the ‘rest of the world’ to Indonesia was likely to be affected by the imports from China. The suitability of Indonesia as a representative country was rejected in the Second Note.

(96) With regard to Türkiye, despite existence of several producers of the yarns of polyamide in Türkiye, none of them had readily available financial information or was profitable in the investigation period. The Commission therefore resorted to the analysis of Turkish companies with readily available financial information in the whole general category of the product under investigation with view to calculate the average of all profitable companies in the sector with reasonable profit and SG & A. The Commission established that the producers of man-made filaments, such as polyamide yarns, polyester yarns or acrylic yarns, were listed under the NACE 1310 ‘Preparation and spinning of textile fibres’. The Commission noted that the main difference between the production process of polyester, acrylic and polyamide yarns lied in the polymer used in the production process, whereas the essential production steps remained comparable. Under NACE 1310, the Commission identified twenty-six Turkish companies profitable in the investigation period. However, only one company in the NACE 1310, SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş, had readily available financial information. To consider the widest and most relevant whole general category of the product under investigation, the Commission also analysed whether there were Turkish companies with readily available financial information under NACE 1399 ‘Manufacture of other textile’ and 2016 ‘Manufacture of plastic in primary form’ but excluded these codes as either there were no profitable Turkish companies, or these companies manufactured incomparable products, such as textiles, garments or fabrics.

(97) In the Second Note, the Commission confirmed that SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş remained an appropriate producer in the whole general category of the product under investigation for the purpose of calculating the SG & A and profit.

(98) Eversun Group argued that the production process and cost structures of polyamide yarns and polyester yarns were distinct industries because polyamide yarn production relied on nylon chips (accounting for 55 %–70 % of total material consumption), and the polyester yarn’s main raw material was PTA. Eversun Group claimed that the procurement costs, processing complexity, and energy consumption of the two raw materials differed substantially, which in turn affected the profit margins.

(99) With regard to the unsuitability of the benchmarks in Indonesia, Eversun Group alleged that the impact of raw material price fluctuation was negligible compared to the fundamental differences in profit margins between the polyamide and polyester yarn industries. Eversun Group requested the Commission to apply the financial data of Indonesia’s PT Ever Shine Tex as the valid basis for calculating the profit margin of the product under investigation, rather than SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş.

(100) In addition to the arguments set out in recital (95), the Commission reiterated that the import price of nylon 6 chip, the main raw material, to Indonesia was distorted and this fact was not challenged by the interested parties. As Indonesia was found unsuitable as a representative country, the Commission could not apply the available financial information of PT Ever Shine Tex. The Commission maintained that the production process of yarns of polyester and polyamide are similar, as evidenced by the Union producers, and that SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş remained an appropriate producer in the whole general category of the product under investigation for the purpose of calculating the SG & A and profit. The argument was rejected.

(101) Having established that Türkiye was the only available appropriate representative country, based on all of the above elements, there was no need to carry out an assessment of the level of social and environmental protection in accordance with the last sentence of Article 2(6a)(a) first indent of the basic Regulation.

(102) In view of the above analysis, Türkiye met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation in order to be considered as an appropriate representative country.

(103) In the First Note, the Commission listed the factors of production such as materials, energy and labour used in the production of the product under investigation by the exporting producers and invited the interested parties to comment and propose publicly available information on undistorted values for each of the factors of production mentioned in that Note.

(104) The Commission received comments from Eversun Group, Highsun Group and the complainants.

(105) With regard to the caprolactam benchmark, the Commission noted that Russian imports of caprolactam to the Union stopped in 2023 due to the sanction regime under Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (86), while, at the same time, the imports of Russian caprolactam to Türkiye increased significantly from 2023 onwards. The Commission informed in the First Note that 52 % of imports of caprolactam into Türkiye originated in Russia and that the average Russian import price of was only 4 % lower than the average price from the ‘rest of the world’’. The Commission concluded that the import price of caprolactam from the ‘rest of the world’ was likely to be affected by the imports from Russia.

(106) The complainants expressed agreement with the Commission’s methodology and submitted additional evidence demonstrating the that Russian imports of caprolactam into Türkiye had significantly increased since 2022, and that the import prices were maintained at low levels, while the Union’s imports from Russia stopped entirely from 2023 onwards.

(107) To establish an adequate and undistorted caprolactam benchmark, the Commission resorted to the average import price from all countries to all countries, excluding China and non-WTO countries, extracted from GTA. The Commission noted that certain transactions contained values in RMB with zero quantities reported. The Commission disregarded these transactions as they would artificially increase the value. The Commission established the average import price from all countries to all countries (excluding China and non-WTO countries) and added the weighted average import duties levied by twelve biggest importing countries covering 95,49 % of the worldwide imports, amounting to 4,69 %.

(108) Eversun Group objected the Commission’s basis for the conclusion that import price of caprolactam from the ‘rest of the world’ was likely to be affected by the imports from Russia. Eversun Group alleged that the Commission assumed that as there was no significant difference between import price from Russia and the rest of the world (4 %), then the price of the rest of the world was entirely unreliable. Eversun Group requested the Commission to bring evidence to support the finding that the import price of caprolactam was not reliable.

(109) In the Second Note, the Commission published the import statistics of caprolactam from Russia to Türkiye, extracted from GTA, and observed that in 2020 and 2021, there were no imports of Russian caprolactam to Türkiye. Between 2022 and 2023, the imports rose from 5 678 tonnes to 12 779 tonnes, while the average unit price decreased from 2,09 EUR/KG to 1,52 EUR/KG. In the investigation period, the imports decreased to 9 775 tonnes, and the average unit price also decreased to 1,48 EUR/KG. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the unit price of Russian caprolactam continued to decrease post-investigation period, with the unit price in 2025 at 1,28 EUR/KG. At the same time, the average import price from other countries increased. Therefore, on the basis of a dynamic volume and price-based analysis over time, and the dominant Russian import share of 52 %, the Commission concluded that import prices from other countries to Türkiye were affected by Russian imports. Thus, the claim of Eversun Group was rejected.

(110) The complainants recalled that the product under investigation was produced from nylon 6,6, nylon 5,6, nylon 5,10 or nylon 11. The complainants submitted that the different types of polyamides had slightly different molecular structures and different cost. The complainants contended that the Commission should list other types of polyamide polymers used in the production of the product under investigation by either including other types of polyamide polymers individually in the list of factors of production, or by considering a broader category of ‘polyamide polymers’, encompassing nylon 6, nylon 6,6 and other relevant types (e.g. nylon 5,6).

(111) The Commission observed that the HS structure in Türkiye did not distinguish between different types of nylon chips. The most detailed code in the Turkish nomenclature was ‘39.08 Polyamides in primary forms: 3908.10 – Polyamide-6, -11, -12, -6,6, -6,9, -6,10 or -6,12’ (87). Therefore, all types of polyamide chips were already encompassed in the benchmark. The Commission updated the title of the benchmark to reflect that all types of nylon chips contained in the benchmark.

(112) Highsun Group submitted that the nylon chip benchmark values in the seven potential representative countries were higher than the reasonable Chinese market price of the nylon 6 chip, which Highsun Group used in the production of the product under investigation exported to the EU. Highsun Group further alleged that the raw data of nylon 6 chip published in the First Note included data for inputs unrelated to nylon 6 chip, such as nylon chip PA-9, PA-10, PA-11, PA-12, etc. Highsun Group requested the import data of such inputs to be excluded.

(113) The Commission concluded in recital (82) that it was not appropriate to use Chinese domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. Consequently, the Commission proceeded to construct the normal value exclusively on the basis of corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. The argument on reasonableness of the Chinese domestic price was therefore rejected. The Commission further noted that no sufficient level of detail existed at the 6-digit or 8-digit HS code level to distinguish between nylon 6 chips, nylon 6,6 chip and other types of nylon chip. The Commission established that all types of polyamide chips were already encompassed in the benchmark established in Section 3.2.5.5 and no evidence was brought forward showing how the use of data at 6 or 8 digit was affected by other inputs to a point that would make the benchmark inadequate. The argument was rejected.

(114) In its comments to the Second Note, the complainants submitted that Russian imports of nylon chips classified under HS code 3908 10 fell within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and that, with increasing import volumes between 2022 and the investigation period, at decreasing unit average prices, the Russian imports of nylon chips into Türkiye negatively affected the average import price of nylon chips into Türkiye from ‘the rest of the world’. The Coalition requested the Russian imports to be removed from the nylon chips benchmark value.

(115) The Commission established in the First Note that the import share of 18 % of the nylon 6 chips to Türkiye originated in Russia and the average Russian import price at 11,83 CNY/kg was substantially below the average import price from the rest of the world (20,61 CNY/kg), China excluded. The Commission therefore concluded that given the share of Russian imports and the difference in price between Russian imports and other imports the average import price of nylon 6 chips from the ‘rest of the world’ was unlikely to be affected by the imports from Russia and did not exclude them from the statistics. The argument was rejected.

(116) With regard to POY/FDY/HOY (88) and DTY/ACY/ATY/TDY/TTY (89) yarns, the complainants alleged that POY and DTY, the factors of production published in the First Note, should have been decomposed into their constituent raw materials as both POY and DTY were finished or semi-finished products entering optional finishing stages, which both fell under the product definition of the investigation, and not raw materials. The complainants alleged that treating them as individual factors of production would risk double-counting upstream and downstream processing steps and misrepresenting the actual cost structure of the production of polyamide yarns. The complainants requested the Commission to decompose POY and DTY into their constituent factors of production, i.e. polyamide polymer chips, energy and labour cost and other manufacturing costs.

(117) The Commission informed that where possible, the cost of manufacturing of POY/FDY/HOY and DTY/ACY/ATY/TDY/TTY yarns was decomposed into the constituent factors of production. Where not possible, due to lack of information on manufacturing of entities not subject to the present investigation, the Commission applied the benchmark value for POY/FDY/HOY and DTY/ACY/ATY/TDY/TTY. The argument was therefore moot for parts of the factors of production and rejected for the remaining factors of production.

(118) Eversun Group further objected that as the Group primarily self-produced the four principal raw materials (caprolactam, nylon 6 chip, POY and DTY), the cost of manufacture should have been based on the actual costs booked in its cost accounting system for these four factors of production.

(119) With regard to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, and as described in Section 3.2.1, the Commission concluded that it was not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence of significant distortions in the PRC. The Commission informed that, where possible, it intended to break down the manufacturing of the materials into the consumption of the input raw materials. The argument on using actual cost booked in the cost accounting system was rejected.

(120) With regard to paper tubes, the complainants submitted that the unit of measurement should have been changed to the number of tubes required per tonne of yarn produced, rather than kg used in the production of the yarns of polyamide.

(121) The Commission informed that the benchmark values at 6-digit level extracted from GTA under HS codes 4822 10 and 4822 90 were measured in kg. The complainants did not demonstrate that the measurement of the paper tubes benchmark was not appropriate. The Commission thus rejected the argument.

(122) In its comments to the First and Second Note, Eversun Group and Highsun Group submitted that oil agent used to produce the yarns of polyamide was partially imported from third countries and it reflected international prices. Eversun Group and Highsun Group provided evidence of the quantities of this raw material purchased on the international markets.

(123) With regard to the import price of oil agent from third countries at international prices, the Commission analysed the evidence brought forward by Eversun Group and Highsun Group during the onsite verifications. The Commission concluded that the international prices for the quantities of oil agent imported from third countries could be taken into account in the construction of the normal value. The claim was accepted.

(124) With regard to chilled water and compressed air, factors of production published in the First Note, the complainants submitted that units of measurement should have been revised. Concerning chilled water, the Coalition alleged it would be more appropriate to consider the electric energy input required to produce chilled water, rather than the mass of the water itself. With regard to compressed air, the complainants alleged that as air compressors were fully electrically powered, this factor could have been integrated within the consumption of electricity.

(125) Following the comments of the complainants, the Commission updated its methodology, introduced the benchmark for water in the Second Note and updated the consumption values of electricity to reflect the production of chilled water and compressed air. The identification of the benchmark for water is described in recital (143). Furthermore, the benchmarks of compressed air and chilled water were withdrawn. The argument was accepted.

(126) Following onsite verifications, the Commission identified four additional factors of production, which were used in limited quantities but were directly used in the manufacturing process. These additional materials were textile preparations (HS 3809 91 ), spandex yarn (HS 5402 44 ), PTA (HS 2917 36 ) and titanium dioxide (HS 2823 00 ).

(127) In its comments to the Second Note, the complainants requested adjustments to the benchmark of textile preparations and masterbatch. With regard to textile preparations, the complainants suggested limiting textile preparations to tariff code 380991001011, as the other three codes 380991001012, 380991009011 and 380991009019 were not relevant for the polyamide production. With regard to masterbatch, the complainants alleged that the tariff code 320419000011 in the Turkish tariff nomenclature referred to sulphur dyes, which were not used in the production of polyamide yarns. The Coalition requested these codes to be removed from the benchmarks of textile preparations and masterbatch. Furthermore, the complainants alleged that PTA was used in very limited quantities during the production of yarns of polyamide and challenged whether the inclusion of PTA in the list of factors of production reflected the genuine cost structure of the Chinese sampled companies.

(128) With regard to textile preparations and masterbatch, the Commission analysed the claims submitted by the complainants and concluded that it was indeed more appropriate to narrow the HS codes further to HS 380991001011 for textile preparations, and to HS 320419000012 and 320419000019, as these materials are used in the production of the product under investigation. The claim was accepted.

(129) With regard to PTA, as this raw material was actually used in the production of the product under investigation by the sampled Chinese exporting producers, the Commission maintained PTA in the list of factors of production. The argument was rejected.

(130) In the Second Note, the Commission further stated that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use GTA to establish the undistorted cost of most of the factors of production, notably the raw materials. In addition, the Commission stated that it would use the Turkish Statistical Institute (90) for establishing undistorted costs of labour and the electricity tariff tables based on electricity bills published by the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) (91) as well as the price of gas for industrial users in Türkiye as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (92).

(131) In the Second Note, the Commission also informed the interested parties that due to the large number of factors of production of the sampled exporting producers that provided complete information and the negligible weight of some of the raw materials in the total cost of production, these negligible items were grouped under ‘consumables’. Further, the Commission informed interested parties that it would calculate the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials and apply this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted benchmarks in the appropriate representative country.

(133) The Commission included a value for manufacturing overhead costs in order to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above. To establish this amount, the Commission expressed the manufacturing overhead cost incurred by the cooperating exporting producer for the production of the product under investigation as a percentage of the actual cost of the used raw materials and then applied the same percentage to the undistorted cost of the same raw materials in order to obtain the undistorted manufacturing overhead cost. The Commission considered that, in the context of this investigation, the ratio between the exporting producer’s raw material and the reported overhead costs could be reasonably used as an indication to estimate the undistorted manufacturing overhead costs when delivered to the company’s factory.

(134) In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials as delivered at the gate of a representative country producer, the Commission used as a basis the weighted average import price to the representative country as reported in the GTA to which import duties and transport costs were added. An import price in the representative country was determined as a weighted average of unit prices of imports from all third countries excluding the PRC and countries, listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council (93). The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it concluded in Section 3.2.1 that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the PRC due to the existence of significant distortions in accordance with Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions do not equally affect products intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices.

(135) For a number of factors of production, the actual costs incurred by the cooperating exporting producers represented a negligible share of total raw material costs in the investigation period. As the value used for these had no appreciable impact on the dumping margin calculations, regardless of the source used, the Commission decided to include those costs into consumables. The Commission calculated the percentage of the consumables on the total cost of raw materials and applied this percentage to the recalculated cost of raw materials when using the established undistorted prices.

(136) The Commission expressed the transport cost incurred by the cooperating exporting producers for the supply of raw materials as a percentage of the actual cost of such raw materials and then applied the same percentage to the undistorted cost of the same raw materials in order to obtain the undistorted transport cost. The Commission considered that, in the context of this investigation, the ratio between the exporting producer’s raw material and the reported transport costs could be reasonably used as an indication to estimate the undistorted transport costs of raw materials when delivered to the company’s factory.

(137) The Commission analysed the accounting practices of the sampled Chinese exporting producers pertaining to by-products and waste. As a result, the Commission used the quantities of waste products sold and reduced the cost of production, using Turkish prices of the applicable HS codes for waste nylon yarn and waste nylon chip.

(138) The Turkish Statistical Office publishes detailed information on wages in different economic sectors in Türkiye. The Commission used the latest available statistics covering 2022 for average labour cost for the economic activity under NACE code 1310 ‘Preparation and spinning of textiles fibres’ according to NACE Rev.2 classification. The 2022 average monthly value was duly adjusted for inflation using the domestic consumer price index as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (94) to adapt to the investigation period (1 July 2024–30 June 2025) and duly adjusted to size class of company in terms of employee count. The adjustments resulted in the benchmarks of 77,06 CNY/hour for companies with more than 1 000 employees.

(139) In its comments to the Second Note, Highsun Group alleged that there were multiple departments in the Group and the wages varied from department to department, depending on the size and job position. Highsun Group requested the benchmark for labour cost to be applied solely to the staff working on the production of the product under investigation.

(140) The Commission informed that it had taken into account the total number of employees per company working for the production, sales and administration of the yarns of polyamide. The Commission noted that all four producers of yarns of polyamide in the Highsun Group form a single economic entity and that the verified number of employees working for the production, sales and administration of the yarns of polyamide was more than 1 000 employees. The Commission maintained that the benchmark value was correct. The argument was rejected.

(141) The Commission used the electricity price statistics published by the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA) in its regular press releases. The Commission used the data of the industrial electricity prices in kWh for the industrial sector covering the IP (1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025) (95).

(142) The Commission used the price of gas for industrial users in Türkiye as published by the Turkish Statistical Office (96) in its regular press releases. The Commission used the data of the gas prices in the corresponding consumption band in TL/m3 duly adjusted for inflation using the Producer Price Index published by the Turkish Statistical Institute to adapt to the Investigation period (July 2024–June 2025), i.e. 4,38 CNY/m3. The price is adjusted for VAT of 18 %, as the quoted price included VAT.

(143) The Commission used the water tariff charged by Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Investment Office based on sources from the Istanbul water and Sewerage administration, the Eskişehir Water and Sewerage Administration and the Antalya Water and Sewerage Administration (97). The Commission used the latest available statistics as published by this organisation. The benchmark was based on the cost of water and wastewater on a per m3 basis.

(144) According to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, ‘the constructed normal value shall include an undistorted and reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits’. In addition, a value for manufacturing overhead costs needs to be established to cover costs not included in the factors of production referred to above.

(145) The manufacturing overheads incurred by the cooperating exporting producers were expressed as a share of the costs of manufacturing actually incurred by the exporting producers. This percentage was applied to the undistorted costs of manufacturing.

(146) For establishing an undistorted and reasonable amount for SG & A, costs and profit, the Commission relied on the financial data for 2024 for SASA Polyester Sanayi A.Ş, available in the ORBIS database, corroborated with the audited financial statements available on the website of the company, both for 2024.

(147) On this basis, the SG & A expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) and applied to the undistorted costs of production amounted to 7,15 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production amounted to 14,35 %.

(148) On the basis of the above, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(149) First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. The Commission applied the undistorted unit costs to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the sampled cooperating exporting producers. These consumption rates were verified during the verification. The Commission multiplied the usage factors by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country, as described in Section 3.2.1.

(150) To establish undistorted costs of production, as explained in recital (145), the Commission first added manufacturing overheads to the undistorted cost of manufacturing, on the basis of the ratio between manufacturing overheads and costs of material as reported by each sampled exporting producer.

(151) To the costs of production established as described in the previous recital, the Commission applied SG & A and profit as noted in recitals (146) to (147).

(152) SG & A costs, expressed as a percentage of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 7,15 %. The profit expressed as a percentage of the COGS and applied to the undistorted costs of production, amounted to 14,35 %.

(153) On that basis, the Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation.

(154) The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers, through related exporting producers within the sampled Chinese companies, or through related companies acting as traders.

(155) For the exporting producers that exported the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union, through related exporting producers within the sampled Chinese companies, or through related traders, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

(156) 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.

(157) As explained in recital (148), 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.

(158) The Commission found no reasons for making any allowances to the normal value, nor were such allowances claimed by any of the sampled exporting producers.

(159) In order to net the export price back to the ex-works level of trade, adjustments were made on the account of: customs duty, other import charges, freight, insurance, handling loading and ancillary expenses.

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

(161) An adjustment was also made for commissions under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation for INylon E-commerce Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Jinjiang Group Co. Ltd., the related traders of Eversun Group, and Xinhui Meida Nylon Co., Ltd. (HK), and the related trader of Highsun Group. The investigation established that the functions of the related traders were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. Indeed, the companies concerned obtained a profit for their services and traded a broad array of goods other than the product concerned. Moreover, they worked with their related exporting producer concerned on the basis of a contract, which included an arbitration clause. Consequently, the Commission considered it warranted to make an adjustment to the export price pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation for the mark-up received by the related traders.

(162) The adjustment for the constructed commission consisted of the SG & A costs incurred by the related traders and, given the relationship between exporting producer and trader, a notional profit. For the latter, absent of cooperation from unrelated importers in this investigation, the Commission used the unrelated importers’ profit of 6,89 % found in a previous investigation concerning imports of polyvinyl alcohols (‘PVA’) originating in China (98). Polyvinyl alcohol is a petrochemical polymer used in, among others, textile warp sizing. Yarns of polyamide are produced from petrochemical polymers, such as caprolactam, and are used in textile industry. The level of profit found in the polyvinyl alcohol investigation was, therefore, provisionally considered reasonable to use in this case because it was realised by unrelated importers also involved in the trade of petrochemical products.

(163) For the two sampled groups of cooperating 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 concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

(164) On this basis, the provisional weighted average dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are 57,7 % for Eversun Group and 90,1 % for Highsun Group. For the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample, the Commission calculated the weighted average dumping margin, in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, that margin was established on the basis of the margins of the sampled exporting producers.

(165) On this basis, the provisional dumping margin of the cooperating exporting producers outside the sample is 67,1 %.

(166) For all other exporting producers in the PRC, the Commission established the dumping margin on the basis of the facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission determined the level of cooperation of the exporting producers. The level of cooperation is the volume of exports of the cooperating exporting producers to the Union expressed as proportion of the total imports from the country concerned to the Union in the investigation period, that were established on the basis of Eurostat.

(167) The level of cooperation in this case is high as the cooperating exporting producers accounted for around 87,5 % of the total imports during the investigation period. On this basis, the Commission decided to establish the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers at the level of the sampled company with the highest dumping margin.

(168) The residual dumping margin was therefore set at 90,1 %.

(170) The like product was manufactured by ten producers in the Union during the investigation period (99). They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(171) As the figures concerning total Union industry were estimated on the basis of the sensitive reports (100), the consumption and macro indicators figures for the injury analysis are given in ranges for reasons of confidentiality. In the case of micro indicators, ranges are also used due to the fact that three sampled European producers belong to only two groups.

(172) The total Union production during the investigation period was established in the range of [66 000–74 000] tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, such as questionnaire replies of the sampled producers and macro-questionnaire reply provided by the complainant, which contained data provided by non-sampled members of the Coalition and estimations based on reports referred to above. As indicated in recital (10), the sampled Union producers represented 44,4 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(173) The Commission found that an insignificant part of the sampled Union producers’ production was destined for captive use. In view of these insignificant quantities [0,1 %– 0,6 % of production] it was considered unlikely that they may have any effect on the injury or causation picture. Therefore, the Commission did not make a separate analysis of the captive market for the different injury indicators.

(174) The Commission examined certain economic indicators relating to the Union industry on the basis of data for the free market. These indicators are: sales volume and sales prices on the Union market; market share; growth; export volume and prices; profitability; return on investment; and cash flow.

(175) However, other economic indicators could meaningfully be examined only by referring to the whole activity, including the captive use of the Union industry. These are: production; production capacity, capacity utilisation; investments; stocks; employment; productivity; wages; and ability to raise capital. They depend on the whole activity, whether the production is captive or sold on the free market.

(176) The Commission established the Union consumption on the basis of (i) Eurostat data; and (ii) the verified sales of the Union industry.

(178) In the period considered, Union consumption declined, with a drop of 15 % in the investigation period in comparison with a starting year of 2022. The biggest drop took place between years 2022 and 2023, later decreasing trend continued with a slight increase in the second half of the investigation period.

(179) The Commission established the volume of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. The market share of the imports was established by comparing the import volumes to the Union free market consumption as determined in Section 4.2.

(181) In the shrinking market, imports from the PRC increased in absolute terms by 14 %, which resulted in the increase of the Chinese market share on the Union market from [19–21] % to [25–29] % during the period considered, or by around one third.

(182) The Commission established the prices of imports on the basis of Eurostat data. Price undercutting of the imports was established on the basis of verified information provided by the sampled exporting producers in the country concerned and sampled Union producers.

(184) Chinese import prices decreased over the period considered by 20 %.

(186) The price comparison was made on a type-by-type basis for transactions at the same level of trade, duly adjusted where necessary, and after deduction of rebates, discounts and commission fees. The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ theoretical turnover during the investigation period. It showed a weighted average undercutting margin of between 42,4 % and 48,2 % by the imports from the country concerned on the Union market.

(187) In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(188) As mentioned in recital (10), sampling was used for the determination of possible injury suffered by the Union industry.

(189) For the injury determination, the Commission distinguished between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. The Commission evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in macro-questionnaire reply. The data related to all Union producers. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers. The data related to the sampled Union producers. Both sets of data were found to be representative of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(190) The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping.

(191) The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital.

(193) The production volume decreased in the period considered by 25 %. The biggest drop took place between years 2022 and 2023. In the following years production slightly increased, but remained far lower than at the beginning of the period considered. The significant decrease in production also affected the production capacity, which was reduced by 9 % in the same period. Capacity utilisation also declined by 18 %, even in a situation of reduced capacity.

(195) Like the evolution of production volumes, the sharp decrease in the sales volumes took place in the years 2022 and 2023. This negative trend continued in 2024, followed by a slight improvement in the investigation period. Overall, however, the Union industry lost 22 % of sales in the investigation period in comparison with the beginning of the period considered. This drop was stronger than the decrease in consumption (–15 %).

(196) Accordingly, the market share of the Union industry dropped by 4 percentage points from [61–68] % in 2022 to [57–64] % in the investigation period.

(197) The Union industry shrank during the period considered, in particular in 2023 and 2024 as compared with 2022. The Union industry showed a glimmer of resilience in the investigation period, when, at the cost of price decreases, it was able to slightly increase the sales volumes as compared with the previous years.

(199) During the period considered, employment in the Union industry decreased by 10 %. The Union industry tried to maintain the highly trained and qualified staff in the expectation that the market situation would normalise, and higher production volumes could resume.

(200) It follows from the previous recital and recital (193) that, nevertheless, productivity dropped during the period considered.

(201) All dumping margins were significantly above the de minimis level. The impact of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping on the Union industry was substantial, given the volume and prices of imports from the country concerned.

(202) This is the first anti-dumping investigation regarding the product concerned. Therefore, no data were available to assess the effects of possible past dumping.

(204) Union industry’s sales prices were depressed by competition from Chinese imports. Prices declined by 9 % in the period considered.

(205) However, after 2023, the Union industry managed to restructure and reduce its costs. The average costs of production decreased between the 2023 and the investigation period by 10 % and in the whole period considered by 4 %.

(207) Labour costs increased by 14 % in the period considered. Only in 2023 and 2024, the Union producers managed to keep labour costs stable.

(209) As the Union industry reacted to the reduced sales volume by reducing its production volume, the share of closing stocks on the production volume remained rather stable (around 25 %) over the whole period considered.

(211) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. With the exception of 2022, the Union industry was loss making in the period considered.

(212) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. In line with the development of profitability, cash flow also declined, especially in the investigation period. The negative cash flow in the starting year 2022 was due to the special circumstances related to the revaluation of inventories in one of the sampled companies.

(213) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The return on investments was positive in 2022 but dropped significantly in the following years of the period considered.

(214) It follows from the above that the sampled Union producers’ ability to raise capital was negatively affected by the declining profitability and net cash flow.

(215) The Union industry lost significant sales volumes and four percentage points market share in a shrinking Union market. In addition, the Union industry became loss-making in the period considered, after still having been profitable in the starting year 2022. This negative evolution continued despite Union industry efforts to restructure and decrease its costs. The situation of loss-making adversely affected also other financial indicators such as cash flow, net investments and return on investments. Drop of these indicators was deepening in the investigation period. Furthermore, the reduction of sales resulted in a decrease of production and forced reduction of the production capacity as well as employment.

(216) On the basis of the above, the Commission provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

(217) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the country concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. These factors are: imports from third countries, export performance of the Union industry and the contraction in demand.

(218) During the period considered, the Union industry lost significant sales volumes on the Union market, as its sales volumes decreased by 22 %. As consumption dropped by 15 %, the Union industry’s market share decreased from [61–68] % in 2022 to [57–64] % in the investigation period.

(219) The decrease of the Union industry’s market share could be attributed to a parallel increase of imports from the country concerned, as there were no other sources of imports of significance gaining market share during the period considered. Indeed, imports from China increased market share from [19–21] % to [25–29] %. Imports from China continued to grow and gain market share at the expense of the Union industry.

(220) At the same time, Chinese import prices undercut the Union industry prices by more than 40 % during the investigation period. The Chinese import prices depressed the prices of the Union industry, adversely affecting its financial indicators, despite Union producers’ efforts to reduce their costs.

(221) Due to the lost sales volumes, the Union industry also experienced a significant decline in production quantities. To remain competitive, the Union industry was forced to lower its sales prices (by 9 % in the period considered), which negatively affected profitability, which apart from year 2022, was always negative in the period considered, and reached the lowest level in the investigation period.

(222) It was, therefore, provisionally concluded that dumped imports of polyamide yarn from China caused material injury to the Union industry.

(224) The Commission analysed trends in imports from the main countries other than China being present on the European market of polyamide yarn, i.e. Israel, Vietnam and Türkiye.

(225) Only Israel held over the whole period considered market share above 2 %. However, prices of imports from Israel were consistently higher than the prices of the Union industry. Furthermore, imports from Israel showed a decreasing trend in the period considered.

(226) Despite low import prices from Vietnam, imports from this country never reached market share over 2 % in the period considered and, therefore, did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(227) Imports from Türkiye throughout the period considered were stable, continuously below 1,5 % market share, and its prices were comparable with those of the Union producers.

(228) Imports from all other third countries dropped over the period considered and their prices were overall at higher levels than prices of the Union producers.

(229) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that the imports from third countries did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

(231) The export sales volumes of the Union industry decreased by 52 % during the period considered (with the biggest drop in 2022 and 2023), but these volumes were not substantial, compared to the total sales volumes of the Union industry. The decrease of export volumes in the relative terms meant that the percentage of export sales in total sales of the Union producers decreased from 7 % to 4 %. Moreover, average export sales prices were similar to Union sales prices throughout the period considered.

(232) On that basis, the Commission provisionally concluded that decrease in export volumes did not contribute to the injury.

(233) As explained in Section 4.2, the Union market fluctuated in the period considered with a contraction of 15 % in the investigation period in relation to 2022. Regardless of the fluctuations in the market, the share of Chinese imports continued to increase even in periods of contraction and, furthermore, the Union industry was not able to maintain market share. A decline in the Union industry sales volumes proportionate to the decline in demand would have been in the order of 8 000 to 10 000 tonnes, whereas in reality, due to the rise of Chinese imports, the decrease essentially doubled and amounted to 16 000 to 20 000 tonnes. Therefore, the Commission provisionally concluded that the contraction in demand in the market did not attenuate the causal link.

(234) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The Commission found that the imports from third countries (other than China), and export performance of the Union industry did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry.

(235) The drop in consumption might have contributed to the injury but not to the extent that it would break the causal link, as the sales volumes lost to imports from China exceeded the drop in consumption.

(236) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from the country concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. The injury is clear, in particular as regards production and sales volumes, market share, profitability, cash flow, and return on investments.

(237) 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.

(238) The injury would be removed if the Union industry would be able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic Regulation.

(239) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the country under investigation, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (R & D) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

(240) As a first step, the Commission established a basic profit covering full costs under normal conditions of competition. As the Union industry suffered losses in most of the period considered, and profits in 2022 were very low, the Union industry data could not be used, the Commission established a minimal reasonable profit margin at 6 %. This target profit was also in line with the target profit provided in the complaint.

(241) One sampled Union producer provided evidence that its level of investments, R & D and innovation during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition. The Commission verified this information and concluded that the provided internal documentation and communications showed that the company did not carry out certain investments due to the situation on the Union market. To reflect this in the target profit, the Commission calculated the difference between investments, R & D and innovation (‘IRI’) expenses under normal conditions of competition as provided by the sampled Union producer and verified by the Commission with actual IRI expenses over the period considered. Such difference, expressed as a percentage of turnover, was [1,8–3,0] %.

(242) That percentage was added to the basic profit mentioned in the recital (240), leading to a target profit of [7,2–9,0] % for the product types produced by that sampled Union producer.

(243) In accordance with Article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Two of the three sampled Union producers provided evidence of having incurred compliance cost, such as internal data and compliance cost audit report. Based on the evidence available, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established an additional cost of [42–60] EUR/tonne, which was reflected in the non-injurious price mentioned in recital (244) for the product types produced by the two sampled Union producers.

(244) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of [5 500–6 200] EUR/tonne on weighted average for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital (242)) to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) on a type-by-type basis.

(245) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in the PRC, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

(247) As explained in the Notice of Initiation, the complainant provided the Commission sufficient evidence that there are raw material distortions in the country concerned regarding the product under investigation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, this investigation examined the alleged distortions to assess whether, if relevant, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury.

(248) However, as the margins adequate to remove injury were higher than the dumping margins, the Commission considered that, at this stage, it was not necessary to address this issue.

(250) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

(251) The investigation has shown that the Union industry suffered material injury caused by the increasing volume of dumped imports from the PRC. The injury materialised in particular in a strong decline in production and sales volumes and a continuous erosion of its profit margin, due to the price depression caused by these imports. Should the anti-dumping measures not be imposed, the Union industry would continue to be lossmaking which would further compromise its viability. On the contrary, the imposition of the measures will help to restore fair competition on the Union market and thus allow the Union industry to recover.

(252) The Commission therefore concluded that the imposition of the measures would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(253) Only one importer submitted a partial reply to an importer questionnaire in this anti-dumping procedure. However, this reply did not contain any descriptive part nor any opinion. However, the company has provided data showing that its import from China was minimal and its financial situation was very good.

(254) Considering the above, the Commission concluded that the measures will not have disproportionally negative effects on unrelated importers and traders.

(255) None of the users that registered as interested party filled in a user questionnaire or made any submission with regard to the potential imposition of anti-dumping measures or the procedure itself, with the exception of the product scope exclusion request described in recital (27). Additionally, two users, not registered as interested parties, sent letters explaining that potential measures would adversely affect them and/or the downstream industry, but they presented no evidence nor submitted any data.

(256) Considering the above, the Commission concluded that the measures will not have disproportionally negative effect on users of the product under investigation.

(257) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of polyamide yarn originating in the PRC at this stage of the investigation.

(258) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

(259) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of yarns of polyamide originating in the People’s Republic of China, in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. The Commission concluded in recital (249) that the appropriate level to remove injury should be the dumping margin.

(261) 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 with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part and in the Annex of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(262) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the 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 the People’s Republic of China.

(263) 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 must 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 lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

(264) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume 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 and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. 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.

(265) As mentioned in recital (3), the Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration. Registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation.

(266) In view of the findings at provisional stage, the registration of imports should cease/be discontinued.

(267) No decision on a possible retroactive application of anti-dumping measures has been taken at this stage of the proceeding.

(268) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE’s website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them. Comments were received from Eversun Group and Highsun Group.

(269) Eversun Group submitted that, in the case of a related trader, the Commission in the calculation of certain credit costs, limited to a small number of transactions, had not taken into account the appropriate payment terms. In this regard, the Commission corrected the credit costs adjustment which, however, did not have an effect on the level of the dumping margin of the Eversun Group.

(270) Highsun Group submitted that the producer Xinhui Dehua Nylon Chips Co., Ltd. was omitted from the list of companies of the proposed duties and had certain other comments regarding the labour benchmarking.

(271) With regard to the submission of Highsun Group, the Commission corrected the list of companies, by including the company mentioned above in Article 1(2) of the regulation. The other comments submitted by the Highsun Group did not concern the accuracy of the calculations, but rather to the methodologies used by the Commission in the determination of their respective dumping margin. Those comments will therefore be considered, together with all other submissions, after the publication of provisional measures.

(272) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

(273) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

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, 26 March 2026.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.

(2) OJ C, C/2025/4120, 29.7.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4120/oj.

(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1984 of 3 October 2025 making imports of yarns of polyamide originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ L, 2025/1984, 6.10.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1984/oj).

(4) Save No t25.008288.

(5) Save No t25.008473.

(6) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2805.

(7) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959 of 17 July 2024 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of erythritol originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L, 2024/1959, 19.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1959/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180 of 16 October 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/607 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of citric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of citric acid consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2023/2180, 17.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/2180/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752 of 12 April 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium gluconate 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 (OJ L 100, 13.4.2023, p. 16, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/752/oj); Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/441 of 11 March 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid 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 (OJ L 85, 21.3.2021, p. 154, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/441/oj).

(8) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 161-162; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 89-90; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 70.

(9) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 103-113; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 46-50; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 49.

(10) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 114-122; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 51-55; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 50-54. While the right to appoint and to remove key management personnel in SOEs by the relevant State authorities, as provided for in the Chinese legislation, can be considered to reflect the corresponding ownership rights, CCP cells in enterprises, state owned and private alike, represent another important channel through which the State can interfere with business decisions. According to the PRC’s company law, a CCP organisation is to be established in every company (with at least three CCP members as specified in the CCP Constitution) and the company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organisation. In the past, this requirement appears not to have always been followed or strictly enforced. However, since at least 2016 the CCP has reinforced its claims to control business decisions in SOEs as a matter of political principle. The CCP is also reported to exercise pressure on private companies to put ‘patriotism’ first and to follow party discipline. In 2017, it was reported that party cells existed in 70 % of some 1,86 million privately owned companies, with growing pressure for the CCP organisations to have a final say over the business decisions within their respective companies. These rules are of general application throughout the Chinese economy, across all sectors, including to the producers of the product under review and the suppliers of their inputs.

(11) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 123-133; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 56-65; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recitals 55-63.

(12) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 134-138; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 66-69; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 64.

(13) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 139-142; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 71-72; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 65.

(14) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1959, recitals 143-152; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2180, recitals 72-81; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/752, recital 66.

(15) Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 10 April 2024 (SWD(2024) 91 final), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2024)91&lang=en, including the previous version of the document: Commission Staff Working Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, 20 December 2017 (SWD(2017) 483 final/2), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)483&lang=en.

(16) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 59-60 and paragraphs 69-77.

(17) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 61-64.

(18) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 65-66.

(19) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 74-77.

(20) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 78-81.

(21) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 82-85.

(22) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 86-89.

(23) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 90-94.

(24) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 96-105.

(25) Complaint (open version), paragraphs 106-108.

(26) See at: http://www.eversun-jinjiang.com/about/company-profile.htm (accessed on 27 November 2025).

(27) See at https://www.hscc.com/profile.html (accessed on 27 November 2025).

(28) See at: https://www.hdnylon.com/aboutus (accessed on 4 December 2025).

(29) See at: https://www.shenma.com/ (accessed on 4 December 2025).

(30) See at: http://www.zjsnny.com/wap/content.aspx?channel_id=13&category_id=138#:~:text=%E4%B8%89%E5%AE%81%E5%8C%96%E5%B7%A5%E5%A7%8B%E5%BB%BA,%E6%B0%91%E8%90%A5%E4%BC%81%E4%B8%9A%E7%AC%AC12%E4%BD%8D%E3%80%82 (accessed on 4 December 2025).

(31) See at: http://www.sinopecnews.com.cn/xnews/content/2024-12/11/content_7113538.html (accessed on 4 December 2025).

(32) See at: https://www.shenma.com/ (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(33) See Shenma Industrial Co. Ltd. annual report 2024, p. 132, available at: http://file.finance.sina.com.cn/211.154.219.97:9494/MRGG/CNSESH_STOCK/2025/2025-3/2025-03-26/10806904.PDF (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(34) See Central China Securities’ report: Nylon industry chain analysis and industry overview in Henan Province, p. 12, available at: https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H3_AP202405211634051550_1.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(35) See: http://qxb-pdf-osscache.qixin.com/AnBaseinfo/55e309b976671b808bf4c9e04a6c0177.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(36) See: http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2588045/n27271785/n27271792/index.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(37) See Article 33 of the CCP Constitution, Article 19 of the Chinese Company Law. See also the Report, Chapter 3, p. 47-50.

(38) See CPCIF Articles of Association, Article 3, available at: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/detail/40288043661e27fb01661e386a3f0001?e=1 (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(39) Ibid.

(40) See CPCIF Articles of Association, Article 36, available at: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/detail/40288043661e27fb01661e386a3f0001?e=1 (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(41) See at: http://www.cpcif.org.cn/detail/40288043661fd28501661fd4ed380000?e=1 (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(42) Ibid.

(43) See CCFA Articles of Association, Article 3, available at: https://www.ccfa.com.cn/3/202109/2260.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(44) Ibid.

(45) See CCFA Articles of Association, Article 36, available at: https://www.ccfa.com.cn/3/202109/2260.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(46) See at: https://www.ccfa.com.cn/11/202404/4264.html (accessed on 9 December2025).

(47) See Guiding Catalogue for Industrial Structure Adjustment (2024 Edition), p. 24, available at: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/fzggwl/202312/P020231229700886191069.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(48) Ibid, p. 49.

(49) See Catalogue of Encouraged Industries in the Western Regions, p. 36, available at: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/fzggwl/202411/P020241129575948108198.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(50) See Guiding Catalogue for Industrial Structure Adjustment (2024 Edition), p. 87, available at: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/fzggwl/202312/P020231229700886191069.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(51) See Section III.8.3 of the 14th FYP on economic and social development and 2035 perspectives, available at: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-03/13/content_5592681.htm (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(52) See at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/08/content_5683972.htm#msdynttrid=WRmyf07ph0z74SHmXoOLKjRWl09BdZ4lGdYp9fiI9xU (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(53) Ibid., Section I.3.

(54) Ibid., Section II.3.

(55) Ibid., Section III.4.

(56) See at: https://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/claw/clawContent.shtml?id=93802 (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(57) Ibid., Table 2.4.

(58) See at: https://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20211201/1191133.shtml (accessed on 9 December 2025).

(59) Ibid., Section II.2.4.

(60) Ibid, see Section III.1.2.

(61) See at: https://fgw.henan.gov.cn/2023/04-12/2723836.html (accessed on 15 August 2025).

(62) Ibid., Section II.3.

(63) See at: https://www.cq.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkml/szfwj/qtgw/202108/t20210803_9538603.html (accessed on 14 August 2025).

(64) See at: http://www.yongrongjinjiang.com/news/comnews-detail-3785.htm (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(65) See at: https://tzb2.fjut.edu.cn/2020/0529/c1232a123691/page.psp (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(66) See at: https://www.hscc.com/news/655.html (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(67) See at: https://www.hscc.com/news/1008.html (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(68) See Shenma Industrial Co. Ltd annual report 2024, p. 58, available at: http://static.cninfo.com.cn/finalpage/2025-03-21/1222865317.pdf, (accessed on 14 August 2025).

(69) See at: http://www.hbwmw.gov.cn/wmywtj/202012/t20201229_169655.shtml (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(70) See at: https://chemeng.dlut.edu.cn/info/1146/12702.htm (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(71) See at: http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/gsglc/index.shtml (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(72) See at: http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/000/000/041/41878.shtml (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(73) The Report, Part III, Chapter 16.

(74) Ibid., Section 16.3.

(75) See Section IV.1.3, available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-12/29/content_5665166.htm (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(76) See at: https://www.fujian.gov.cn/zwgk/ztzl/sxzygwzxsgzx/sdjj/szjj/202501/t20250120_6704543.htm (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(77) See at: http://fj.people.com.cn/n2/2021/1021/c181466-34967542.html (accessed on 10 December 2025).

(78) See at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-murky-bankruptcies-expose-hazards-foreign-investors-2025-04-15/ (accessed on 12 December 2025).

(79) See Section VIII.16, available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/08/content_5683972.htm#msdynttrid=WRmyf07ph0z74SHmXoOLKjRWl09BdZ4lGdYp9fiI9xU (accessed on 18 April 2025).

(80) See at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202511/content_7047643.htm (accessed on 12 December 2025).

(81) Ibid, Section 11.

(82) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income.

(83) POY (partially oriented yarn), FDY (fully drawn yarn), HOY (highly oriented yarn).

(84) DTY (drawn textured yarn), ACY (air covered yarn), ATY (air textured yarn), TDY (twisted drawn yarn), TTY (twisted textured yarn).

(85) https://evershinetex.com/.

(86) Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/833/oj).

(87) Turkish 12 Digit Hs Codes Under Chapter 39 – TurkExim.

(88) POY (partially oriented yarn), FDY (fully drawn yarn), HOY (highly oriented yarn).

(89) DTY (drawn textured yarn), ACY (air covered yarn), ATY (air textured yarn), TDY (twisted drawn yarn), TTY (twisted textured yarn).

(90) https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Structure-of-Earnings-Statistics-2022-49750&dil=2.

(91) https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Home/En.

(92) https://www.tuik.gov.tr/Home/Index.

(93) Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/755/oj). Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation considers that domestic prices in those countries cannot be used for the purpose of determining normal value.

(94) https://data.tuik.gov.tr.

(95) epdk.gov.tr => Press releases => select Electricity Market board decisions.

(96) EMRA | Energy Market Regulatory Authority (epdk.gov.tr) => Press releases => select Electricity market board decisions.

(97) https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/investmentguide/pages/cost-of-doing-business.aspx#.

(98) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 315, 29.9.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/1336/oj).

(99) In 2022 it was eleven companies – but one of the European producers ceased production of the polyamide yarn in this year.

(100) Wood Mackenzie Global Production YP, Wood Mackenzie PA Global Market Overview.

(101) Of the sampled producers.