(1)

In May 2014, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed definitive anti-subsidy countervailing duties on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘China’) by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 471/2014 (2) (‘the original investigation’).

(2)

In separate proceedings, the Commission also imposed anti-dumping duties ranging from 0,4 % to 36,1 % in May 2014 (3). In August 2015, following an anti-absorption reinvestigation, the Commission amended the anti-dumping measures by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1394 (4). By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1080 (5), the Commission prolonged, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the definitive anti-dumping duty for another five years.

(3)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1081 (7) (the ‘previous expiry review’), the Commission prolonged, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the definitive countervailing duty for another five years (‘the measures in force’).

(4)

The individual countervailing duties currently in force range from 3,2 % to 17,1 %. All other companies are subject to a country-wide duty of 17,1 % (‘the measures in force’).

(5)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (8) the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.

(6)

The request for review was submitted on 19 April 2025 by Interfloat Group, i.e., Interfloat Corporation and GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (‘the applicants’) on behalf of the Union industry of solar glass in the sense of Article 10(6) 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 subsidisation and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(7)

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 25(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 22 July 2025 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’, ‘China’ or ‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (9) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(8)

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation covered the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 (‘the 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 January 2022 to the end of the review investigation period (‘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 applicants, the known Union producers, users of the product under review in the Union, the known producers in the PRC and the authorities of the PRC, known importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry 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.

(11)

One party requested a hearing with the Commission services. A hearing between the Commission and Solar Heat Europe, an association representing several users active in solar heat technology, took place on 11 May 2026. The hearing concerned the review investigations, further to which they registered as interested party and raised arguments further detailed in section 6.2.

(12)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.

(13)

In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers, even though sampling of Union producers was not necessary in this case, given the small number of producers in the European Union that came forward. The sample consisted of the two Union producers listed in the review request. The two producers accounted at that moment for approximatively 70 % of the Union production and sales which is representative of the Union industry. In accordance with Article 27(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were made. The sample consist of the following two companies:

(14)

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.

(15)

Two importers initially came forward, UAB Soli Tek Cells (‘Soli Tek’), and Sunerg Solar Energy (‘Sunerg’), and were sent the unrelated importer questionnaire. Following the receipt of the reply to the questionnaire from Soli Tek, it was concluded that this company is a user instead of an importer. The Commission consequently asked them to fill out the users’ questionnaire. Sunerg did not reply to the questionnaire.

(16)

To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the 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. The Commission did not receive any reply from the GOC.

(17)

No exporting producers from the PRC cooperated.

(18)

Consequently, the Commission informed the authorities of the PRC by Note Verbale of 5 November 2025 that it intended to resort to the use of facts available under Article 28 of the basic Regulation when examining the continuation or recurrence of subsidisation. The authorities of the PRC did not respond to the Note Verbale.

(19)

The Commission sent an anti-subsidy questionnaire to the GOC. The GOC did not provide any reply to the questionnaire.

(20)

The Commission invited the applicants, the other Union producer, and the users to complete the questionnaires, which were made available on its website (10) on the day of initiation. The Commission received questionnaire replies from the producers (GMB/ Interfloat, and AGC) and from users (Soli Tek, SOLVIS and Bisol). Deficiency letters were sent to GMB and to Interfloat, AGC, and SOLVIS.

(21)

The applicants failed to submit the macro-questionnaire despite multiple requests from the Commission services. Bisol submitted a very deficient questionnaire reply and did not reply to the Commission’s enquiries.

(22)

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury and of the Union interest. Pursuant to Article 26 of the basic Regulation, verification visits of the following companies were carried out:

(23)

The situation of the Union industry did not allow for the verification visits to take place. Both producers have stopped production in the beginning of 2025. The applicant, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH, filed for insolvency in November 2025, and cancelled the scheduled verification visits at short notice on two occasions. The other producer, AGC, was not able to receive the Commission’s case team due to the stoppage of production. On this basis and in the absence of a dedicated association (11), a substantial share of information was not submitted and could not be verified by the Commission.

(24)

The Commission services performed remote cross-checking of the information provided by the above-mentioned users.

(25)

On 28 August 2026, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to repeal the countervailing duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(26)

Following disclosure, no comments were received and no party requested a hearing.

(27)

The product under review is solar glass consisting of tempered soda-lime-flat-glass, with an iron content of less than 300 ppm, a solar transmittance of more than 88 % (measured according to AM1,5 300–2 500 nm), a resistance to heat up to 250 °C (measured according to EN 12150), a resistance to thermal shocks of Δ 150 K (measured according to EN 12150) and having a mechanical strength of 90 N/mm2 or more (measured according to EN 1288-3), currently falling under CN code ex 7007 19 80 (TARIC codes 7007 19 80 12, 7007 19 80 18, 7007 19 80 80 and 7007 19 80 85) (‘the product under review’). The solar glass subject to countervailing duties includes all glass fulfilling the abovementioned technical and physical characteristics, whether it is used for photovoltaic modules, flat photothermal energy collectors, furniture, to build greenhouses, or for other uses.

(28)

Solar glass can be patterned or non-patterned, with either a transparent or diffuse surface or a variety of edgeworks. There can be different patterns on both sides of the glass, or it can be just single-sided patterned. Solar glass may have drillings, and can also be printed through the application of, for example, ceramic colours. The surface of the glass may be treated using different technologies. The most common is an anti-reflective coating applied before or after the tempering process. Other technologies allow the solar glass to be coated with thin functional layers providing increased transmittance, self-cleaning, anti-soiling or hardness properties.

(29)

Solar glass is one of the components for making crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and thin film photovoltaic modules to produce electricity (‘PV modules’), as well as flat photothermal energy collectors used, for example, in generating hot water (‘photothermal modules’). It is also used for the construction of greenhouses (so-called ‘horticultural glass’ or ‘greenhouse glass’).

(30)

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC currently falling under CN code ex 7007 19 80 (TARIC codes 7007 19 80 12, 7007 19 80 18, 7007 19 80 80 and 7007 19 80 85).

(31)

As established in the original investigation and in the previous expiry review investigation, solar glass produced and sold by the Union industry in the Union and solar glass produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and solar glass imported into the Union from the PRC share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and the same end uses. They are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.

(32)

The Commission examined whether there was continuation of subsidisation by analysing whether the subsidies countervailed in the original investigation continued to confer benefit to the solar glass industry.

(33)

The 13th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the PRC (12) (‘the 13th FYP’), which covers the period 2016–2020, highlights the strategic vision of the GOC for improvement and promotion of key industries, such as the solar energy industry. The 13th FYP is the successor of 12th FYP, in which the solar glass industry had been endorsed as a key field for development of manufacturing.

(34)

Chapter 30 of the 13th FYP expresses the GOC’s commitment to ‘[building] a Modern Energy System’. Section 1 of that Chapter, in particular, provides strong evidence to the fact that the GOC still views the solar glass industry as an encouraged industry. Indeed, Section 1 reads that ‘[the GOC] will continue to give impetus to the development of (…) photovoltaic power’, and that ‘[the GOC] will improve supportive policies for power generation from (…) solar (…) energy’. Further, ‘the development of (…) photovoltaic energy in the northern, north-eastern and north-western regions and in coastal areas’ will be optimised in the context of Energy Development Projects. These excerpts demonstrate that the GOC continues to support the solar energy industry for which the solar glass is essential and thus forms an integral part for the development of the solar power industry.

(35)

More recently, the 14th Five-Year Plan (13) (‘14th FYP’) states that ‘[the GOC] will promote the energy revolution, build a clean, low-carbon, safe, and efficient energy system, and improve energy supply assurance capabilities. We will accelerate the development of non-fossil energy, adhere to both centralised and distributed methods simultaneously vigorously increase the scale of wind power and photovoltaic power generation accelerate the development of distributed energy in the eastern and central regions [and] increase the proportion of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption to about 20 %’.

(36)

With the objective of increasing the core competitiveness of manufacturing of ‘high-end new materials’, the same FYP states that the Chinese government ‘will promote breakthroughs in advanced metals and inorganic non-metallic materials such as high-end rare earth functional materials, […] and electronic glass’.

(37)

Decision No 40 of the State Council (14) on Promulgating and Implementing the ‘Interim Provisions on Promoting the Industrial Structure Adjustment’ (which, together with the ‘Interim Provisions on Promoting the Industrial Structure Adjustment’ is referred to as ‘Decision No 40’) states that the Chinese government ‘will actively support the development of new energy industries and expedite the development of solar energy’ and instructs Chinese financial institutions to provide credit support only to encouraged projects; and promises the implementation of ‘other preferential policies on the encouraged projects’.

(38)

Additionally, ‘Decision No 9 of the State Council on Promulgating and Implementing the Guidance Catalogue for the Industrial Structure Adjustment’ (15) (‘Decision No 9’) ‘actively encourages’ the GOC and public agencies to ‘guide the development of relevant industries, optimise the upgrading of the industrial structure’. Point 12(2) of Decision No 9 specifically mentions the encouragement of ‘ultra-thin’ glass for solar energy industry’ production.

(39)

This decision was replaced in 2024 by the ‘Catalogue for Guiding Industry Restructuring’ (16), announced by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (‘NDRC’), with the same reference retained.

(40)

In conclusion, the GOC still regards the solar glass industry as one to be encouraged.

(41)

As mentioned in recital (17), no exporting producer from the PRC cooperated. The Commission therefore used facts available under Article 28(1) of the basic Regulation.

(42)

On 5 November 2025, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. The GOC did not provide any reply to the questionnaire.

(43)

Consequently, the Commission, by Note Verbale of 20 February 2026, informed the GOC that it intended to use facts available under Article 28(1) of the basic Regulation with regard to the information requested from the GOC. The GOC was informed that a finding based on facts available may be less favourable.

(44)

No comments in this regard were received. The Commission, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic Regulation, considered the use of facts available necessary in order to make any determinations with regard the continuation of subsidy practices of China in the solar glass industry. Accordingly, the Commission used for its analysis all facts available to it, in particular:

(45)

Based on the evidence on the file mentioned under recital (44) of the present Regulation, and notably on recitals (43) to (129) of the previous expiry review and paragraphs 70 to 189 of the review requests, the Commission concluded that there is sufficient evidence that subsidisation of the solar glass industry in the PRC continued during the review investigation period and is likely to continue in the future.

(46)

The investigation established that, since the beginning of 2025, there has been no production of the product under review in the Union. At the request stage, only GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg and AGC Glass Europe were still operating. However, both producers ceased production in the first quarter of 2025, and the post-RIP developments confirmed that production remained suspended.

(47)

Union producers have indicated that the continuation of the measures would allow production to restart once market conditions would improve. However, throughout the investigation, Union producers were unable to substantiate that prospect. They provided no element demonstrating that market conditions would improve, nor any binding agreement, secured financing or operational plan showing that, and when, a restart could take place. The Commission was likewise given no document justifying a potential restart of production or a takeover of the relevant activity, despite having expressly offered the Union producers the opportunity to submit such evidence.

(48)

Considering the absence of any verifiable information, the Commission could therefore not establish the likelihood of a resumption of Union production within a reasonably foreseeable period following continuation of the measures.

(49)

To the Commission’s knowledge, GMB and AGC were the only two remaining Union producers of solar glass at the beginning of the RIP. During the investigation, the Commission consulted users and associations in order to verify whether any other producers of the product under review were active in the Union. Other possible producers were contacted; however, they provided no indication of any production or activity in respect of the product under review. No other producer came forward during the investigation.

(50)

The two verified users, UAB Soli Tek cells and SOLVIS d.o.o., claimed that, in the light of the foregoing, the investigation should be terminated forthwith on the grounds that the Union industry has ceased to produce the product under review.

(51)

Indeed, GMB entered into insolvency proceedings in July 2025 and, subsequently, allegedly entered in negotiations with a new investor to take over its activities.

(52)

Concerning the request from the users to terminate the investigation, the Commission noted that at that moment, given the ongoing insolvency proceedings, it would have been premature to conclude that the industry had ceased to exist on a permanent basis. Thus, the Commission did not terminate the proceeding on the basis of the absence of a Union industry. The Commission therefore decided to continue the investigation and assess all available evidence.

(53)

By the time the investigation was concluded however, production in the Union had not resumed, and the applicants provided no verifiable evidence of a potential takeover.

(54)

As a matter of fact, by the end of the RIP, the Union solar glass industry had not re-started its activities nor re-opened its factories for the production of the product under review.

(55)

In those circumstances, there is no Union industry within the meaning of Article 9 of the basic Regulation whose situation could be examined for the purposes of determining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, nor any production in respect of which the existing measures could continue to afford protection.

(56)

Based on the above, the Commission found that the Union industry has ceased its production activities concerning the product under review and that no verifiable prospect of a resumption exists within a reasonably foreseeable period. In the present case, in the absence of any Union production at the end of the RIP, in the absence of a Union industry within the meaning of Article 9 of the basic Regulation, in the impossibility of examining the situation of the Union industry and failing to provide any verifiable prospect of a resumption of its production, the Commission concluded that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury.

(57)

The investigation established the non-likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, thus an analysis on causation was not necessary given the conclusions set out in the above section.

(58)

Although the finding set out in recital (56) is in itself sufficient to conclude that the measures should not be maintained, the Commission also examined, for the sake of completeness and in accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation, whether maintaining the existing countervailing measures would be against the interest of the Union. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry and of users.

(59)

As explained in Section 4, the investigation established that, the Union industry ceased production of solar glass during the review investigation period, thus, there is, de facto, currently no active Union industry.

(60)

The Union industry argued that the prolongation of the measure would restore the industry provided that market conditions improve. As mentioned in recital (47) the Commission rejects this claim due to the lack of supporting evidence.

(61)

As explained in Section 1.8, none of the information submitted by the Union producers could be verified. In the light of the applicant’s situation, and in particular of its repeated incapacity to submit the requested information and to allow the information submitted to be verified, the Commission considered that the Union industry was unable to demonstrate a continued and actual interest in the continuation of the measures.

(62)

Consequently, in the current situation, in the absence of any active production of the product under review by the Union industry and, with no verifiable prospect of resuming production, the Commission could not identify any interest for the Union industry in prolonging the measures to protect the industry against potential unfair trade practices concerning a product it no longer produces.

(63)

The users of solar glass consist of photovoltaic modules manufacturers, the solar thermal industry, and to a certain extent, greenhouses manufacturers.

(64)

All users expressed their opposition to the continuation of the measures. Users argued that in the absence of solar glass production in the Union, the measures act de facto as a tax.

(65)

The Commission carried out remote cross-checking of two users, both solar panels manufacturers. During the verification, the Commission assessed the impact of the two possible outcomes of the investigation.

(66)

The continuation of the measures would not change the situation of users. Solar glass originating in China would still be subject to countervailing duties. In the absence of any Union production, the Union users, however, have no choice but to import their solar glass. Maintaining the measures would therefore increase the costs on downstream users sourcing their solar glass from China without providing any benefit to an upstream industry that has effectively ceased to operate.

(67)

On the other hand, the termination of the measures would result in a direct positive impact for users’ cost of production. The investigation established that solar glass constitutes a significant share of the cost structure of solar panel producers. Solar glass amounts to approximatively 12 % to 18 % of the cost of production of standard modules. Considering the production time and the delivery from China, the Commission concluded that the users’ industry would require at least four months before benefiting from the termination of the measures, in the form of a reduction of their cost of production, ultimately resulting in higher profits or a competitiveness gain in the Union.

(68)

In a downstream market characterised by strong price pressure and narrow margins, even a slight decrease in the users’ cost of production is expected to enhance their ability to compete with imported modules.

(69)

On this basis, the continuation of the measures does not serve the Union’s interest, whereas their termination would enhance the competitiveness of the downstream solar module industry without harming any Union producers since none are active in this market.

(70)

On the basis of the above, having weighed the interests involved, the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons relating to the Union interest to prolong the measures.

(71)

On the contrary, the Union interest analysis, as regards the users’ interest in particular, support allowing the measures to lapse. In the absence of an active Union industry, the measures no longer serve the purpose for which they were imposed.

(72)

It follows from the above considerations that, under Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the countervailing duties applicable to imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 471/2014 and extended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1081, should be repealed. As mentioned in recital (70), the Commission concludes to the absence of a Union interest that justifies the continuation of the measures.

(73)

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,