(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2)

The measures took the form of a specific duty per company ranging from 361,4 EUR/tonne to 531,2 EUR/tonne net product weight.

(3)

These measures have been annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 22 March 2012 (3) but were re-imposed on 18 February 2013 by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 (4).

(4)

The measures were maintained by Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1313/2014 (5) and (EU) 2020/1534 (6) following expiry reviews pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (7) the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(6)

The request for review was submitted on 21 July 2025 by the Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Transformados Vegetales y Alimentos Procesados (‘Fenaval’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Union production of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would likely result in continuation of dumping and continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(7)

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 21 October 2025 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation and its corrigendum (8) in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(8)

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2025 (‘the period considered’).

(9)

In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, the known producers in the PRC, the authorities of the PRC, known importers and users, about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(10)

Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. None of the parties requested a hearing.

(11)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample exporting producers in the PRC and unrelated importers in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(12)

As mentioned in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission made available questionnaires to the only two known Union producers, namely Agricultura y Conservas, S.A. and Industrias Videca, S.A. Sampling of Union producers was not considered necessary.

(13)

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

(14)

No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Consequently, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary. No comments were received to this decision.

(15)

To decide whether sampling was 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.

(16)

Only one exporting producer in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Consequently, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(17)

The company was invited to submit the questionnaire reply, however on 17 November 2025 the exporting producer formally informed the Commission of its intention not to cooperate.

(18)

On the day of initiation of the investigation, the Commission made available on its website (9) questionnaires for exporting producers, Union producers, unrelated importers in the Union and users in the Union. The Commission sent also 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’).

(19)

Questionnaire replies were received from the Union producers only. No replies were received from other interested parties, such us: exporting producers, unrelated Union importers and/or Users and the GOC.

(20)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits pursuant to Article 16 of the basic Regulation were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

Union producers:

(21)

In the absence of cooperation from the exporting producers and considering the limited number of Union producers, some of the figures presented below are in the form of ranges to avoid confidentiality breaches.

(22)

The product under review is the same as the one in the original investigation, that is, prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, currently classified under CN codes 2008 30 55 , 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008 30 90 61, 2008 30 90 63, 2008 30 90 65, 2008 30 90 67 and 2008 30 90 69) (‘canned mandarins’).

(23)

The product under review is obtained by peeling and segmenting certain varieties of small citrus fruits (mainly satsumas) which are then packaged in a medium of sugar syrup, juice or water in various sizes to meet the specific demands of the different markets.

(24)

Satsumas, clementines and other small citrus fruit are commonly known by the collective name ‘mandarin’. Most of these different varieties of fruit are suitable to be used as fresh product or for processing. They are similar and their preparations or preservations are, thus, considered to be one single product.

(25)

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China currently falling under CN codes 2008 30 55 , 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008 30 90 61, 2008 30 90 63, 2008 30 90 65, 2008 30 90 67 and 2008 30 90 69).

(26)

As established in the original investigation as well as in previous expiry reviews, this expiry review investigation confirmed that the following products have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses:

(27)

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

(28)

During the review investigation period, imports of the product under review from the PRC decreased in comparison to the previous expiry review investigation period (that is from 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2019). According to Eurostat imports of canned mandarins from the PRC accounted for about [32-35] % of the Union market in the review investigation period compared to 71,1 % market share during the original investigation and 43,3 % during the first expiry review and [30-41] % in the previous expiry review. In absolute terms, imports from the PRC amounted to 15 188 tonnes in the review investigation period.

(29)

As mentioned in recital (19) no exporters/producers from the country concerned cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to the PRC. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(30)

Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular Eurostat data, Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation (‘Article 14(6) database’), information in the request for review and information obtained from cooperating parties in the course of the review investigation (namely, the applicant and the Union producers). In addition, the Commission used other sources of publicly available information such as data from Türkiye, which was selected as representative country, including data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (10), as well as data from Orbis Bureau van Dijk (11) (‘Orbis’) and Global Trade Atlas (12) (‘GTA’).

(31)

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

(32)

In order to obtain information, it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 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.

(33)

No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, on 14 January 2026, 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. No comments were raised by the GOC in this regard.

(34)

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

(35)

On 21 January 2026, the Commission informed by a note (‘the 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 all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of the product under review. In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks, the Commission identified Türkiye as the appropriate representative country. Furthermore, it also informed interested parties that it would establish selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG & A costs’) and profits based on available information for the company Frigo-Pak, a producer in the representative country. No comments were received.

(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 refereed hereinafter 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)

The Commission examined the evidence on the file to decide whether significant distortions within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation exist in the PRC, rendering the use of domestic prices and costs in that country inappropriate. That analysis covered the following evidentiary elements on the various criteria relevant to establish the existence of significant distortions.

(40)

First, the evidence contained in the request included the following elements pointing to the existence of significant distortions:

(41)

Second, in previous investigations concerning the canned fruit sector in the PRC (20), the Commission found that significant distortions in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation were present. 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 (21). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the canned fruit sector, not only does a substantial degree of ownership by the GOC persists in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), first indent of the basic Regulation 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 (22). The Commission found further that the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials and inputs further have an additional distorting effect on the market. Indeed, overall, the system of planning in the PRC results in resources being driven to sectors designated as strategic or otherwise politically important by the GOC, rather than being allocated in line with market forces. 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 (23). In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the canned fruit sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation (24), 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 (25).

(42)

Third, in the most recent expiry review concerning the product under review20 the Commission concluded that significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation were present. No major structural changes in the PRC in general and/or in the relevant sector, capable of affecting that conclusion, are known to the Commission.

(43)

Fourth, additional evidence available in the Report (26), prepared by the Commission pursuant to Article 2(6a)(c) of the basic Regulation, pointed to the existence of significant distortions also during 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025 (‘the review investigation period’).

(44)

Fifth, no evidence or arguments to the contrary have been adduced by the GOC or the exporting producers in the present investigation.

(45)

In view of the above, the evidence available showed that prices or costs of the product under review, 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 as shown by the actual or potential impact of one or more of the relevant elements listed therein.

(46)

On that basis, 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.

(47)

The choice of the representative country was based on the following criteria pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

(48)

As explained in recitals (35), the Commission issued a note for the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value on 21 January 2026. This note described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria, informed interested parties of its intention to consider Türkiye, the country proposed in the expiry review request 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.

(49)

In line with the criteria listed under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission identified Türkiye as a country with a similar level of economic development as the PRC. Türkiye is classified by the World Bank as an ‘upper-middle income’ country on a gross national income basis. Furthermore, Türkiye was identified as a country where the product under review is produced and where relevant data was readily available.

(50)

Finally, given the absence of cooperation and having established that Türkiye was an 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.

(51)

In the absence of cooperation, as proposed in the expiry review request and given that Türkiye met the criteria laid down in Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected Türkiye as the appropriate representative country.

(52)

In the Note, the Commission listed the factors of production such as materials, energy and labour used in the production of the product under review by the Union industry and invited the interested parties to comment and propose readily available information on undistorted values for each of the factors of production mentioned in that note.

(53)

The Commission also stated in the Note that, in order to construct the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, it would use GTA (29) to establish the undistorted cost of the factors of production, notably the raw materials.

(54)

In addition, the Commission stated it would use the data from Eurostat (30) for electricity, the Turkish Statistical Institute (31) for natural gas and labour, for establishing undistorted costs. Finally, the Commission stated that to establish SG & A costs and profit, it would use the financial data from the Turkish producer mentioned in recital (35) above.

(55)

The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties concerning the list of factors of production in the Note.

(56)

Considering all the information in the expiry review request and subsequent information submitted by the applicant and collected during the verification visits and in the absence of cooperation by Chinese exporting producers or comments on the Note, the following factors of production and their sources have been identified in order to determine the normal value in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation:

Table 1

Factors of production of canned mandarines

(57)

In order to establish the undistorted price of raw materials as delivered at the gate of a producer in the representative country, the Commission used as a basis the import price to the representative country as reported in the GTA to which import duties and transport costs (when available as explained in recital (61)) were added.

(58)

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 the countries listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council (32).The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it concluded in recitals (39)-(46) that it was 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.

(59)

Given that there is no evidence showing that the same distortions did not equally affect raw materials used to manufacture products intended for export, the Commission considered that the same distortions affected export prices. After excluding imports from the PRC into the representative country, the volume of imports from other third countries remained representative.

(60)

For a number of factors of production (i.e. juice) the actual costs incurred by the Union producers represented a negligible share of total raw material costs in the review 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.

(61)

Normally, domestic transport prices should also be added to these import prices. However, considering the level of dumping margins calculated below, as well as the nature of this expiry review investigation, which is focused on finding whether dumping continued during the review investigation period or could reoccur, rather than finding its exact magnitude, the Commission decided that adjustments for domestic transport were unnecessary when the information was not available. Only the transport costs reported by the Union producers for the supply of the mandarins has used and not for all raw material. Such adjustments would only result in an increase of the normal value and consequently a higher dumping margin.

(62)

The Turkish Statistical Institute publishes detailed information on wages in different economic sectors in Türkiye. The average hourly labour cost per full time employment (‘FTE’) amounts to 45,91 CNY per hour. The Commission established the benchmark for the investigating period based on the hourly average labour cost for manufacturing in sector NACE Rev.2 for the economic activity C-10 (33) for 2022, indexed to 2024 based on adjustment indices in the manufacturing sector in Türkiye (NACE C).

(63)

The Commission noticed that the reference to the economic activity reported in the FOP note (NACE C-23) was incorrect in light of the reference (NACE C-10) used for the underlying calculation. The Commission therefore confirms that the right economic activity used to identify the labour cost benchmark is NACE C-10. Energy (Electricity, Natural gas)

(64)

The Commission used the latest available data on industrial electricity prices applicable in the review investigation period (‘RIP’) in Türkiye as published by Eurostat. Information indicates an average industrial tariff for 2024 of 0,741 CNY per kWh (34).

(65)

Regarding natural gas, the Commission used the price for industrial users in Türkiye as published by the Turkish Statistical Institute (35) in its regular press releases. The Commission used the data of the gas prices in the corresponding consumption band in Kuruş/m3 duly adjusted for inflation using the Producer Price Index published by the Turkish Statistical Institute to adapt to the review investigation period (October 2024-September 2025). The price was adjusted for VAT of 18 %, as the quoted price is VAT included.

(66)

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.

(67)

In order to establish an undistorted value of the manufacturing overheads and given the absence of cooperation from the exporting producers, the Commission used facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. Therefore, based on the verified data of the Union producers, the Commission established the ratio of manufacturing overheads to the total direct cost, i.e. cost including the consumption of raw materials and energy, and direct and indirect labour cost. This percentage was then applied to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing to obtain the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads, depending on the model produced.

(68)

In order to establish an undistorted value for SG & A cost and for profit, the Commission used the financial data from the Turkish company, Frigo-Pak for the year 2025 as reported in the company’s audited accounts (36). The Commission added the following items to the undistorted costs of manufacturing:

(69)

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.

(70)

First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. In the absence of cooperation by the exporting producers, the Commission relied on the information provided by the applicant in the review request on the usage of each factor (raw materials, energy and labour) to produce canned mandarins which were cross-checked against the questionnaire replies of the Union producers. The unit consumption of each factor of production was multiplied by the undistorted cost based on data from the representative country. The sum of undistorted cost of raw materials, energy and labour represent the undistorted cost of manufacturing.

(71)

Once the undistorted manufacturing cost was established, the Commission added the manufacturing overheads, SG & A costs and profit.

(72)

Manufacturing overheads were determined based on data provided by the verified data of the Union producers and were expressed as a ratio of their cost of manufacturing. This percentage was then applied to the undistorted value of the cost of manufacturing to obtain the undistorted value of manufacturing overheads. Manufacturing overheads accounted for [15-19] % of the cost of manufacturing. By adding the undistorted manufacturing overheads to the undistorted cost of manufacturing, the Commission established the undistorted cost of production. SG & A costs and profit were determined based on the financial information of the Turkish company, Frigo-Pak for 2025 as explained in recital (68), which accounted for 21 % and 29 % of the Costs of Goods Sold (‘COGS’) respectively. The respective percentages of undistorted SG & A cost and profit were applied to the total undistorted costs of manufacturing.

(73)

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. Considering the lack of cooperation by exporting producers, which made it impossible to obtain export price to the Union or to third countries per product type, the Commission determined a single normal value as an average of the normal values established per product type.

(74)

In the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from the PRC, the export price was determined based on CIF Eurostat data, corrected to ex works level. Thus, the CIF price was reduced by the sea freight and insurance cost and domestic transport cost. Domestic Chinese and international transport costs were based on information provided by the applicant in the request for review.

(75)

The Commission compared, at aggregated level, the normal values established in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation, with the export price on an ex-works basis as established above.

(76)

On this basis, the difference between the export price and the constructed normal value was found to be significant (over 160 %). It was therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.

(77)

Further to the finding indicating the existence of dumping during the review investigation period, the Commission investigated, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following additional elements were analysed: (i) the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, (ii) the relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union and (iii) the attractiveness of the Union market.

(78)

In the absence of cooperation, the Commission established production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC on the basis of facts available, information provided in the request for review and the assessment made in the previous expiry review based on the group of exporting producers that came forward and filled in the sampling form.

(79)

According with the available data in season 2019, the annual production in China for canned mandarins was estimated at 80 000-110 000 tonnes (37) and the production capacity at 120 000-170 000 tonnes, resulting in an estimated spare capacity at 40 000 -60 000 tonnes. This excess capacity for canned mandarins is significant considering that the consumption in the Union amounted to 44 000 tonnes in the review investigation period and the Union industry sales are [7 000-10 000] tonnes. The domestic market of the canned mandarin in China is small (around 9 000-13 000 tonnes in 2019). Even when assuming that canned mandarins could be sold at high prices in the Chinese domestic market, there are no indications that the Chinese market will meaningfully grow or absorb any spare capacities. Therefore, the Chinese canned mandarins industry could be considered export oriented. The Chinese estimated spare capacity is already 5-6 times higher than the total sales volume of the Union industry om the Union market.

(80)

Based on the above, the Commission concluded that China was among the largest producers of canned mandarins in the world and had significant spare capacity, which could be easily exported to the Union if measures were repealed.

(81)

The Commission examined whether it was likely that Chinese exporting producers would increase their export sales at dumped prices on the Union market should measures be allowed to lapse.

(82)

The Union market is the fourth largest globally. It remains highly attractive to Chinese exporters in terms of price and volume. The price is higher than the most other Chinese export markets – except for Japan as evidenced by the continued presence of imports despite existing measures (38). Additional incentives stem from higher Union prices and trade restrictions in other markets, notably the 25 % ad valorem tariffs imposed by the United States (39), which may redirect exports towards the Union.

(83)

In the event of a repeal of measures, significant price pressure from Chinese imports –supported by substantial capacities is likely. This would force the Union industry to either lower its prices, leading to an increase of its losses in term of profitability (-5 % in 2023 and -10 % in 2024), or reduce volumes, increasing unit costs and further undermining profitability. Over time, this would lead to a capacity reduction.

(84)

Given the already fragile situation of the Union industry, any increase in dumped imports from China would likely cause a rapid deterioration of its already fragile financial position.

(85)

The Chinese export price to third country markets was established during the review investigation period on the basis of data available from GTA export statistics, as well as data obtained by the Union producers (40), namely on the basis of the quantities and values of exports from the PRC (at FOB level). In 2024, despite the anti-dumping duties in place, the Union is the fourth most important export market for the Chinese exporting producers. The average unit price to the Union is 1 210 EUR/tonne. The three most important export markets are the USA, Japan, and Indonesia. The average unit prices are 1 130 EUR/tonne for the USA, 4 120 EUR/tonne for Japan, and 910 EUR/tonne for Indonesia.

(86)

According to GTA, the volume of exports from the PRC to Indonesia decreased significantly between 2023 and 2024 (the difference of 3 493 tonnes representing around [7,6-8,5] % of the Union consumption in the IP). This decrease can be potentially redirected to the Union.

(87)

Given the significant export volumes from the PRC to major third country markets, the comparatively low prices offered to the Union, and the recent decline in exports to Indonesia that could be redirected, there is a clear risk that additional low-priced imports may be channelled into the Union market, thereby increasing competitive pressure on the Union industry.

(88)

In view of the past dumping behaviour, the high level of dumping still found in the review investigation period, the significant spare capacity in PRC, the behaviour of Chinese exporters on the third countries’ markets, relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union and the attractiveness of the Union market, we conclude it is likely that dumping will continue if the measures are discontinued.

(89)

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

(90)

The total Union production during the review investigation period was established at around [8 000-10 000] tonnes. The Commission established the figure on the basis of all the available information concerning the Union industry, namely the questionnaire replies of the Union producers. As indicated in recital (12) the two Union producers represent the total Union industry.

(91)

The Commission established the Union consumption based on the sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market and import data from Eurostat, at CN code and TARIC code level. These sales volumes were cross-checked and updated, when necessary, as regards verified information from the Union producers.

(92)

Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (tonnes)

(93)

Over the period considered, the Union consumption developed in function of the quality of the harvest in the Union. These figures may be affected by stock-piling effects which may slightly distort the figures for EU consumption. An 11 % decrease in demand was recorded over the period considered.

(94)

The Commission established the volume of imports based on Eurostat data. The market share of imports was established by comparing import volumes with the Union consumption as reported in Table 2 above.

(95)

Imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume and market share

(96)

In the period considered, import volumes from the PRC increased by 37 %. In view of the decrease in Union consumption, however, the increase in market share was considerably higher at the level of 54 %, gaining around 12 percentage points of market share over the period considered.

(97)

The Commission established the prices of imports from the country concerned on the basis of Eurostat data. The weighted average price of imports into the Union from the country concerned developed as follows:

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/tonne)

(98)

As reflected in the above table the prices of Chinese imports decreased over the period considered by 13 %.

(99)

In view of the non-cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average sales price of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the Union market, with the weighted average import price of the product under review from the PRC from Eurostat, established on a CIF basis, including the anti-dumping duty.

(100)

This price comparison showed a difference between the average export sale price and the average Union industry sales price of 8,9 %. Without the anti-dumping duties, the difference amounted to 30,1 %.

(101)

Import volumes, as well as the market share and price trends for imports of canned mandarins from other third countries are presented as follows:

Table 5

Imports from third countries

(102)

Over the period considered, imports from Türkiye which represent 62 % of imports from other third countries into the Union, decreased by 15 %. A larger decline than the 11 % decrease in consumption.

(103)

The market share of imports from al third countries except the PRC dropped by 4 %.

(104)

The price of imports from all the third countries except the PRC, compared to those of the Union industry, was [400-600] EUR/tonne lower during the review investigation period.

(105)

Pursuant to 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 factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(106)

The total Union production, production capacity and capacity utilisation developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 6

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(107)

The total Union production of the product under review decreased steadily in the first three years of the period considered by 56 %, with a ten-percentage points recovery in the review investigation period. Overall, the production decreased by 46 % during the period considered. This decrease in production can be attributed to the loss of market share due to the dumped imports and to a lesser extend to the decrease in consumption.

(108)

The average capacity utilisation followed a similar trend as the production and demand. In view of the stable production capacity, the capacity utilisation decreased by 46 % overall, similarly to the decrease in production.

(109)

The Union industry’s sales volume and market share developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 7

Sales volume and market share

(110)

The Union industry’s sales volume followed a similar trend as the Union consumption. Overall, the Union industry’s sales volume decreased by 42 % during the period considered, with a decrease in the first three years and a beginning of a slight recovery during the review investigation period.

(111)

The total Union industry’s market share decreased by 34 % over the period considered.

(112)

The decrease in consumption was 11 % over the period considered. Against this background, the Union industry lost market share, whereas imports from the country concerned were the only ones to increase, gaining 54 % in market share. By contrast, imports from other third countries (namely Türkiye), decreased by 4 %.

(113)

Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Employment and productivity

(114)

Employment decreased by 30 % throughout the period considered. Productivity of the Union producers’ workforce, measured as output (tonne per person employed per year), also decreased by 23 % explained by the higher decrease of production (-46 %) in relation to the decrease in employment (-30 %).

(115)

The weighted average unit sales prices of the Union producers to unrelated customers in the Union developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 9

Sales prices and cost of production in the Union (EUR/tonne)

(116)

Over the period considered, the cost of production of the Union industry increased by 39 %. The significant increase of the cost of production in 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 was mainly caused by the effect of the inflationary pressure on the economy. Moreover, the contraction in demand, as explained in recital (93), resulted in an increase of the indirect costs (manufacturing overhead costs) on a per unit basis. At the same time, prices increased by only 13 % so the Union industry was not able to cover the cost increase.

5.5.6.   Labour costs

(117)

The average labour costs of the Union industry developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Average labour costs per employee (EUR)

(118)

Over the period considered, the Union industry average labour cost per employee steadily increased by 16 % over the period considered.

(119)

Stock levels of the Union industry developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 11

Inventories

(120)

The Union industry decreased significantly their stock levels over the period considered (-59 %) as well as the stocks calculated as a percentage of the production (-25 %). Hence it cannot be a sign of injurious situation.

(121)

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 12

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investment

(122)

The Commission established the profitability of the 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. Profitability of the Union producers declined strongly going down from a very healthy profitability level in the first two years of the period considered, to heavily lossmaking in particular in the review investigation period. During such period, profitability deteriorated further with losses in the range of -9,4 % to -10,4 %. This trend was in line with the ones previously described for production and sales in recitals (107) and (110).

(123)

The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow decreased similar to the profitability and turned into a negative figure.

(124)

The level of investment decreased by 22 % over the period considered.

(125)

The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. It developed in the same way as the profitability, as described in recital (122) above.

(126)

Most injury indicators, such as production, productivity, sales, employment, capacity utilisation, productivity, profitability, return of investments and cash flow went down throughout the period considered.

(127)

In addition, the Union industry was injured by the increase in market shares in particular of the Chinese imports.

(128)

Given the situation of the Union industry described, should the measures be allowed to lapse, the Union industry is likely to suffer a rapid and further deterioration of its already fragile financial situation, regardless of whether it chooses to compete on volume or on price.

(129)

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

(130)

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 other third countries, export performance of the Union industry and the contraction in demand.

(131)

During the period considered, the Union industry lost significant sales volumes on the Union market, as its sales volumes decreased by 42 %. As consumption dropped by 11 %, the Union industry’s market share decreased by 34 % over the period considered.

(132)

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 gaining market share during the period considered. Indeed, imports from China increased market share by 54 % from [21-23] % to [32-35] %. Imports from China continued to grow and gain market share at the expense of the Union industry.

(133)

At the same time, Chinese import prices undercut Union industry prices by [28-33] % (without anti-dumping duties) and by [8-13] % (with anti-dumping duties) during the review investigation period. The Chinese import prices also depressed the prices of the Union industry at a time when production costs were rising, thereby adversely affecting the Union industry’s financial indicators.

(134)

Due to the loss of sales volumes, the Union industry also experienced a significant decline in production quantities, down by 46 %.

(135)

It was, therefore, concluded that dumped imports of canned mandarins from China caused material injury to the Union industry

(136)

The volume of imports from other third countries developed over the period considered as shown in recital (101). These imports came mainly from Türkiye [41-45] % market share in the review investigation period), all other countries (i.e. Mexico, Peru, United Kingdom, etc. [1,8-2,2] % market share in the review investigation period).

(137)

Imports from Türkiye showed a slight decrease in both price (-10 %) and volume (-15 %), while for the other countries imports the volume remain rather stable while the price increased by 41 %).

(138)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the imports from other countries (Türkiye excluded), due to their low volume and high increase of prices were not contributing to the injury suffered by the Union Industry. On the other hand, import volumes from Türkiye have decreased (-15 %) followed by a decrease of price (-10 %). This price reduction of Turkish imports is exerting a downward pressure on the Union industry prices, thus contributing to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(139)

The volume of exports of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 13

Export performance of the Union producers

(140)

The export sales volumes of the Union industry decreased by 44 % during the period considered (with the biggest drop in 2023/2024), but these volumes were not substantial, compared to the total sales volumes of the Union industry. The decrease of export volumes followed essentially the same trends as sales on the Union market and the percentage of export sales in total sales of the Union producers remained rather stable between [9,8-11,1] %. Moreover, average export sales prices were similar to Union sales prices in 2023/2024 and the review investigation period.

(141)

On that basis, the Commission concluded that that the export performance of the Union industry did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the country concerned and the material injury found.

(142)

As explained in section 4.2, the Union market fluctuated during the period considered. It fell sharply from 2021/2022 to 2023/2024 with a contraction of 32 %. In the review investigation period the consumption partially recovered, although it remained below the 2021/2022 level with a contraction of 11 %. The Chinese import volumes recorded an increase of 37 % in the review investigation period in comparison to 2021/2022 and gained considerable market share in this period of contraction in demand 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 1 500 to 2 500 tonnes, whereas in reality, due to the rise of Chinese imports, the decrease essentially tripled and amounted to 4 500 to 7 500 tonnes. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the contraction in demand in the market did not attenuate the causal link.

(143)

The Commission concluded in recital (129) that the Union industry suffered material injury during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of continuation of injury caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures against were allowed to lapse.

(144)

In the absence of cooperation from any party in the PRC, the Commission relied on the information available on file. It examined the production volumes and spare capacities in the PRC, the attractiveness of the Union market and the possible impact of the price development of Chinese import volumes and prices as well as the impact of such development on the Union industry’s sales volumes, prices and profitability.

(145)

As already detailed in recitals (78) to (80) above, significant spare capacities are available at the PRC. The PRC is the largest producer of fresh mandarins in the world, and its exporting producers are capable of supplying markets several times the size of the Union’s. These producers have a strong orientation and an incentive to sell their products in large volumes on export markets. The recent past also shows that Chinese exporting producers can adapt swiftly to supply the Union market with dumped imports. It must be recalled that imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC rose exponentially after the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 in March 2012 (see recital (3)).

(146)

Regarding import price levels, the investigation showed that should the measures in force be repealed and assuming that import price from the country concerned and the price of the Union industry would remain the same as during the review investigation period, the import prices would undercut the prices of the Union industry [9-11] % (all types of product concerned). As a consequence, the Union industry is likely to lose sales volume as well as market shares on the Union market.

(147)

The Commission performed a simulation to assess the likely impact of an increase of Chinese import volumes were likely to have on the Union industry. As soon as the Union industry’s sales and production volume decrease by 6 200 tons as a result of an increase in Chinese canned mandarins’ imports, the unit cost of production increases by 7,1 %, deteriorating the situation of the Union producers and rendering them loss-making. This volume increase would be easily achievable for the Chinese exporting producers given their large spare capacity, as established in Section 4.1 above.

(148)

Given that 95 % of imports from third countries other than the PRC come from Türkiye, it cannot be excluded that the dumped Chinese canned mandarins would replace some of these import volumes. At the same time, the average sales price of Turkish imports to the Union is below the average sales price of the Union industry meaning that if dumped Chinese canned mandarins would increase on the Union market, it would most likely first increase market share at the expense of the Union industry, before taking over the market share of the exports from Turkish producers to the Union. However, in any event, given the spare capacity of the Chinese producers they could easily overtake both the market share of the other third countries (including Türkiye) and the Union producers.

(149)

The size of the Union market – being the fourth biggest in the world – is clearly an important factor contributing to its attractiveness. In addition, the fact that imports from the PRC have continued despite the measures in force shows that Chinese exporting producers find the Union market attractive and are keen to continue selling on it. Furthermore, as observed after the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 in March 2012, there is an incentive for Chinese exporting producers to shift exports from other third countries to the higher priced Union market in case of repeal of the measures in force. Additional incentives stem from trade restrictions in other markets, notably the 25 % tariffs imposed by the United States as of 24 September 2018 (41), which may redirect exports towards the Union.

(150)

In view of the above, the expiry of measures would in all likelihood result in immediate and drastic price pressure from the PRC, backed with significant available stocks and capacities. This would force the Union industry to reduce its prices or volumes. If the industry reduced its prices, it would see its profits turning into losses in the short term. If the industry lost sales volumes, its unit costs would increase and reduce profitability even further. In the long term the Union industry would have to adapt (reduce) its production capacities.

(151)

Given the relatively fragile situation of the Union industry as explained in recitals (126)-(129) above, combined with the increase in the current volumes of dumped Chinese imports at a high rate is likely to have an injurious impact on the state of the Union industry, leading to a rapid deterioration of its the financial situation. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a continuation of injury to the Union industry.

(152)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole. 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.

(153)

As concluded in Section 4 above, the Union industry is suffering from material injury. As concluded in Section 5, a repeal of the measures would result of a renewed influx of dumped imports from China which would quickly result in a rapid and further deterioration of its already fragile financial situation. Therefore, the continuation of measures would benefit the Union industry because the Union producers should be able to maintain its sales volumes, market share, improve its profitability and its overall economic situation. By contrast, the discontinuation of the measures could threaten the viability of the Union industry because there are reasons to expect a shift of the Chinese exports to the Union market at dumped prices and in considerable volumes that would cause continuation of injury.

(154)

No importers cooperated with the investigation.

(155)

On this basis, there were no indications that the maintenance of measures would have a significant negative impact on the importers outweighing the positive impact of measures on the Union industry.

(156)

Users did not cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the Commission was not in a position to analyse the impact of existing measures on their situation.

(157)

On this basis, there were no indications that the maintenance of measures would have a significant negative impact on the users outweighing the positive impact of measures on the Union industry.

(158)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of canned mandarins originating in the PRC.

(159)

On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on likelihood of continuation of dumping, likelihood of continuation of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on canned mandarins from the PRC should be maintained.

(160)

To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The companies with the individual anti-dumping duties must present 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. Imports not accompanied by that invoice should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in the People’s Republic of China’.

(161)

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.

(162)

Should the exports by the companies benefiting from the lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the continuation of 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 the individual duty rate and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

(163)

A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (42). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(164)

On 13 July 2026, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(165)

The two Union producers mentioned in recital (12) submitted their agreement with the Commission’s determination. No other comments were received.

(166)

In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (43) when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(167)

The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,