(1)

By Regulation of the Council (EC) No 452/2007 (2), the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine (‘the original measures’).

(2)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 (3), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co, a Chinese exporting producer of ironing boards. The investigations that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigations’.

(3)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 (4), the Council amended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards originating in People’s Republic of China following a new exporter review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

(4)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2010 (5), the Council amended the measures following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(5)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2010 (6), the Council re-imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards of Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan, a Chinese exporting producer of ironing boards, to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-141/08 P (7).

(6)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 987/2012 (8), the Council re-imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd, to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-274/07 (9).

(7)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 695/2013 (10), the Council extended the measures for a further five years with regard to imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealed the measures on imports of ironing boards originating in Ukraine, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and an interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

(8)

By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1662 (11), the Commission re-imposed the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (the ‘previous expiry review’).

(9)

The anti-dumping duties currently in force are at rates ranging between 18,1 % and 39,6 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers and a duty rate of 42,3 % for all other companies in the People’s Republic of China.

(10)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (12), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(11)

The request for review was lodged on 29 June 2024 by 5 Union producers (Afer FUTE – Fábrica de Utilidades de Tubo S.A., Brabantia Latvia SIA, Colombo New Scal SpA, Rörets Polska Sp. z o.o. and Sonecol Indústria Metalurgica de Utilidades Domésticas S.A.) (‘the applicants’) on behalf of the Union industry of ironing boards in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation (‘the request’). The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(12)

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 1 October 2024 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’ or ‘China’ or ‘PRC’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (13) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(13)

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (‘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 2020 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(14)

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, other Union producers, all known producers in the People’s Republic of China, importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(15)

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.

(16)

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

(17)

In the 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 the representativity in terms of volume of production and sales of the like product. This sample consisted of three Union producers, accounting for more than 55 % of the estimated total volume of Union production and sales and ensured a good geographical spread. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. None of the interested parties had comments and the Commission confirmed therefore that the provisionally sampled Union producers have been finally selected to form part of the definitive sample. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

(18)

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.

(19)

No unrelated importers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the absence of cooperation, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(20)

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

(21)

No exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the absence of cooperation, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

(22)

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.

(23)

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’).

(24)

The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers, unrelated importers and users. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (14) on the day of initiation.

(25)

Questionnaire replies were received only from the three sampled Union producers.

(26)

The Commission sought and verified all the information it 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:

(27)

On 19 September 2025, 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.

(28)

No comments contesting the Commission’s findings were received.

(29)

The product subject to this expiry review is the same as in in the original investigations and previous expiry review, namely ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest (‘the product under review’).

(30)

The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the PRC currently falling under CN codes ex 3924 90 00 , ex 4421 99 99 , ex 7323 93 00 , ex 7323 99 00 , ex 8516 79 70 and ex 8516 90 00 (TARIC codes 3924 90 00 10, 4421 99 99 10, 7323 93 00 10, 7323 99 00 10, 8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51).

(31)

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

(32)

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

(33)

During the review investigation period, imports of ironing boards from China continued. According to data reported to the Commission by the Member States in accordance with Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation (‘Article 14(6) database’), imports of ironing boards from the PRC accounted for about 6 % of the Union market in the review investigation period, as compared to 11 % during the previous expiry review (15). In absolute terms the volume of imports was significant in the review investigation period, and it had an increasing trend over the period considered.

(34)

As mentioned in recital (21), none of the exporters/producers in China cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, on 16 December 2024, the Commission notified the authorities of the PRC that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation and base its findings on continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in respect of the exporters/producers in the PRC on the facts available. The Commission did not receive any comments or claims regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation from the GOC.

(35)

Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury were based on facts available, in particular on the information provided in the request and the statistics based on the Article 14(6) database. In addition, the Commission used other sources of publicly available information such as the World Bank, the Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) and the Orbis Bureau van Dijk (‘Orbis’) databases and International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) statistics. The Commission also relied on the findings of the previous expiry review as well as the findings of the anti-dumping investigations concerning the same product initiated by the competent authorities of the US and the UK.

(36)

Given 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, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(37)

In order to obtain the 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. 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 19 December 2024, the Commission notified 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 or claims regarding the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation were received.

(38)

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.

(39)

On 19 May 2025, the Commission informed interested parties by a note on the relevant sources it intended to use for the determination of the normal value. In that note, the Commission provided a list of all factors of production such as raw materials, labour and energy used in the production of ironing boards (the ‘FOP Note’). In addition, based on the criteria guiding the choice of undistorted prices or benchmarks and the request, the Commission identified Türkiye as an appropriate representative country. The Commission received no comments on the FOP Note.

(40)

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’.

(41)

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

(42)

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.

(43)

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.

(44)

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

(45)

The applicants pointed out that the market in question is served to a significant extent by enterprises operating under the ownership, control or policy supervision of the Chinese authorities. The applicants noted that such influence involves not only the market of the product under review but also the market of key raw materials (namely steel). According to the applicants, this is achieved by the GOC through two main channels, one involves the reshaping of the corporate structure of the sector, and the other the exercise of control over management and personnel of individual SOEs (16).

(46)

The applicants took note of the Commission’s findings in the previous expiry review, stating that suppliers of main components of the product concerned are owned by the Chinese state. In the request, the applicants not only noted that ironing board producers, such as Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd, maintain tight links with the CCP (17), but also referred to, as established in the previous expiry review, the influence of the CCP on providers of key components of the product under review (18).

(47)

The applicants also emphasised that the state presence in firms allows it to interfere with respect to prices and costs. It referred to the findings of the Commission in the previous expiry review, stating that this is achieved through the presence of CCP cells within both public and private enterprises (19). Prices and costs are influenced through various instruments such as the artificial increase or decrease of the level of raw material supply or through a price setting mechanism (20).

(48)

Moreover, the applicants indicated that public policies or measures discriminate in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influence free market forces. The applicants noted in that respect that ‘Chinese policies are demonstrably interventionist’. In particular, the applicants mentioned policy measures such as the Made in China 2025, ‘which sets the goal of promoting manufacturing industry, […] and it identifies loan interest subsidies as a type of financial support to be provided to enterprises’, stating further that ‘banks and other lenders are supposed to support these policies by giving loans to companies active in such sectors’ (21).

(49)

The applicants noted that the sector of the product under review is highly influenced by policy measures on steel, which is the main raw material for manufacturing of ironing boards. Regarding this, the applicants noted the ‘overarching control of the government which prevents free market forces from prevailing in the steel sector’ (22).

(50)

Moreover, the applicants claimed the lack, discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy, corporate or property laws. The applicants referred to the Commission findings in the previous expiry review, stating that ‘the sector of the product concerned is subject to the top-down distortions arising from the discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy and property laws’ (23).

(51)

The applicants further pointed out the distortions of wage costs in the sector of the product under review and its raw materials in China, making reference to the previous expiry review which had established that ‘wage costs were distorted in the ironing boards manufacturing sector and in the sectors of its key components’ (24).

(52)

Lastly, the applicants noted that access to finance is distorted in favour of producers of the product under review. In particular, according to the applicants, ‘the functioning of the financial system is characterised by state presence, on both borrowing and lending side as well as by the absence of normal market mechanisms such as effective and transparent bankruptcy and market exit procedures’ (25).

(53)

Second, in recent investigations concerning the sector of the product under review or the steel sector – steel being the principal raw material used for the manufacturing of ironing boards – in the PRC (26), 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 (27). In particular, the Commission concluded that in the steel 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 (28) 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 (29). 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 (30). 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 (31). In the same vein, the Commission found distortions of wage costs in the steel sector in the sense of Article 2(6a)(b), fifth indent of the basic Regulation (32), 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 (33).

(54)

Third, in the most recent expiry review concerning the product under review (34) 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 in particular, capable of affecting that conclusion, are known to the Commission.

(55)

Fourth, additional evidence available in the Report, prepared by the Commission pursuant to Article 2(6a)(c) of the basic Regulation, pointed to the existence of significant distortions also during the review investigation period.

(56)

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

(57)

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. 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.

(58)

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

(59)

As explained in recital (39), the Commission issued a note for the file on the sources for the determination of the normal value: the note on production factors of 19 May 2025, i.e. the FOP Note. This note described the facts and evidence underlying the relevant criteria. In the FOP Note, the Commission informed interested parties of its intention to consider 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.

(60)

In the FOP Note, the Commission identified Türkiye as the country with a similar level of economic development as the PRC according to the World Bank, i.e. it is classified by the World Bank as ‘upper-middle income’ country on a gross national income basis where production of the product under review was known to take place.

(61)

No comments were received concerning the country identified in that note.

(62)

The Commission carefully analysed all relevant data available in the file for the factors of production in the potential representative country and noted the following:

(63)

In light of the above considerations, the Commission informed the interested parties with the FOP Note that it intends to use Türkiye as an appropriate representative country, in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a), first indent of the basic Regulation in order to source undistorted prices or benchmarks for the calculation of the normal value.

(64)

Interested parties were invited to comment on the appropriateness of Türkiye as a representative country in the representative country.

(65)

No comments were received.

(66)

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.

(67)

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.

(68)

No comments from interested parties were received in this respect.

(69)

In the FOP 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 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. No comments were received.

(70)

The Commission also 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 TURKSTAT for establishing undistorted costs of labour (38). As for energy, the previous investigation showed that electricity and natural gas consumed during the production process of ironing boards are insignificant. Therefore, for the purpose of this investigation, the energy cost will again be considered as negligible (39).

(71)

Considering the information contained in the request, 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 ironing boards

(72)

An ironing board is generally a piece of hard narrow flat material protected by a heat-safe cover and often having folding legs, on which clothing or linens may be ironed. According to the definition of the product under review covered by this investigation it can also include a steam soaking, heating top, blowing top, sleeve boards, and other parts. The primary raw material used in ironing boards is metal, mainly steel (metal sheet, tubes, wire). Other raw materials used in the production of ironing boards include paint/coating, plastic parts, foam and fabric.

(73)

The cost structure varies depending on the type of board being produced, e.g. high-end boards contain different types of material compared to basic level boards. The Commission relied on the request for review in order to specify the factors of production used to produce ironing boards. As mentioned above, none of the interested parties provided any comments in this respect.

(74)

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 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 which are not members of the WTO, listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and the Council (41). The Commission decided to exclude imports from the PRC into the representative country as it concluded in recitals (43) to (57) 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. After excluding imports from the PRC into the representative country, the volume of imports from other third countries remained representative.

(75)

Normally, domestic transport prices should also be added to these import prices. However, considering the findings of dumping in recitals (87) to (89) 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. Such adjustments would only result in an increase of the normal value and consequently a higher dumping margin.

(76)

The Turkish Statistical Institute publishes detailed information on wages in different economic sectors in Türkiye. The Commission used the latest available statistics 2022 for average labour cost in the steel sector of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities, commonly referred to as NACE, which includes costs for labour in the steel manufacturing sector, i.e. NACE code C-259 Manufacture of other fabricated metal products (42).

(77)

According to the request for review, the energy (electricity and natural gas) that is consumed during the production process of ironing boards is insignificant. This was confirmed by the findings of the previous expiry review, which were not contested in the current investigation Since the investigation did not bring into light any information contradicting these findings, they were accepted and for the purpose of this investigation energy costs were therefore considered as negligible.

(78)

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.

(79)

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 data provided by the applicants, the Commission established the ratio of manufacturing overheads to the total manufacturing and labour costs. 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. Absent any publicly available information for Turkish ironing boards producers, SG&A costs and profit were determined based on the information found in the sectoral statistics published by the Central Bank of Turkey, namely on the latest available statistics (2023) for C-259 Manufacture of other fabricated metal products.

(80)

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. Due to the absence of cooperation from the Chinese producers/exporting producers, it could not be established which models of ironing boards were produced in China. The Commission relied on the information provided by the applicants in the request for review in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. To this end, the applicants identified six models of ironing boards including low- and high-end level ironing boards. Normal value was established for these models following the methodology explained in recitals (81) to (83) below.

(81)

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 applicants in the review request on the usage of each factor (materials and labour) for the production of ironing boards.

(82)

Once the undistorted manufacturing cost was established, the Commission added the manufacturing overheads, SG&A and profit as noted in recital (78). The Commission added the following items to the undistorted costs of manufacturing:

(83)

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.

(84)

Due to the fact that no Chinese exporting producer cooperated and consequently the Commission had no information on the product mix for either the domestic side or the exports to the Union, the Commission also established a country-wide normal value by averaging the normal values per product type.

(85)

In the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from the PRC, the determination of the export price for all imports was based on facts available. The export price was based on information from the Article 14(6) database and adjusted to free on board (‘FOB’) level by deducting handling and ocean freight based on the evidence provided in the request for review (43). As in the 14(6) database import volumes are reported in kg, the Commission converted the figures into pieces (units) by using the conversion key that was established in the previous expiry review (44) mentioned in recital (8).

(86)

The Commission has no detailed information on the product mix due to the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from the PRC, and the figures from the 14(6) database include all ironing boards without distinguishing types. Consequently, the Commission also used the export prices, by product type, from the offers and quotes provided in the request (45), adjusted to FOB level on the same basis as the data from the 14(6) database. The request did not have any evidence of internal transport costs in China, so it used the FOB price as a proxy for the ex-works price. Considering the finding of dumping in recitals (87) to (89) 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 deducting domestic transport was unnecessary as it would only result in a decrease of the export price and consequently a higher dumping margin.

(87)

The Commission compared the country-wide average constructed normal value established in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the export price on an ex-works basis as established above. On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was above 10 %.

(88)

The Commission also compared the export prices based on the request for review to the normal values established for the corresponding product types as established during this investigation. On this basis, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, range from 37 % to 104 %, depending on the product type.

(89)

It was therefore concluded that dumping continued during the review investigation period.

(90)

Further to the findings of 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 of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following additional elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in China and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(91)

None of the Chinese exporters/producers provided any information as to the actual production capacity in China. There is also no publicly available information concerning ironing boards specifically, such as statistics or market studies and therefore findings had to be based on the information provided by the applicants in the request for review and the findings of the previous expiry review, as information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(92)

According to the information in the request, Chinese producers have an excess production capacity (46). The evidence provided by the applicants in the request was based on the previous expiry review and confirmed by the conclusions of the latest US ITC report from August 2021 (third review of the antidumping duty order). The latter shows that Chinese producers have the capacity to further increase exports of the product concerned, by shifting production between the existing production lines depending on demand. The export data used in the US ITC report already showed that between 2015 and 2020 the Chinese producers were the biggest global exporters of other metal furniture, which includes ironing boards and other products in the same overall product category. They represented between 46 % and 56 % of global exports of these products (47). Moreover, according to the applicants and based on the latest Report, this overcapacity derives from the distortive support by the GOC and the overcapacities for the main input, i.e. steel.

(93)

Based on findings in the previous expiry review, which were not contested in the current investigation, Chinese producers can easily install additional production capacity because the manufacturing process is mainly labour based. Moreover, Chinese producers of ironing boards also produce other metal products on production lines that could easily be used to produce ironing boards. This enables Chinese producers to increase production of ironing boards by shifting production between the existing production lines depending on demand. Such increase of capacity does not require any important investments or skills and the switch between different products is therefore easy. The current investigation did not bring into light any information that would put these findings into question.

(94)

Based on this, the previous expiry review concluded that there are high production capacities available in the PRC, covering at least almost 100 % of the consumption in the EU, that can be easily increased even further (48). The current investigation did not bring into light any information that would put these findings into question.

(95)

The analysis of Chinese exports revealed that, despite the anti-dumping measures in force, the EU market remains one of the most important export markets for Chinese ironing boards producers.

(96)

This is confirmed by the fact that the Chinese market share during the review investigation period was still 6 % despite the anti-dumping measures in force. This clearly indicates that the EU remains an attractive market for Chinese producers of ironing boards and that imports from the PRC would likely increase should measures be allowed to lapse.

(97)

In August 2021, within the framework of the US third sunset review (49), following a first (50) and a second sunset review (51) stemming from the original anti-dumping investigation initiated in 2003 and imposing anti-dumping duties on ironing boards from PRC ranging from 9,47 % to 157,68 %, the US Department of Commerce (‘DOC’) gave notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty order on ironing boards from the China for other five years.

(98)

In addition to those duties, as of 24 September 2018, ironing boards imported from China have been subject to a further 10 % ad valorem duty in the US, which was further increased to a 25 % ad valorem duty as of 10 May 2019 (52).

(99)

Following a changed circumstances review of the anti-dumping duty order regarding imports of ironing boards from PRC originally initiated in 2022, on 19 April 2023 the US DOC determined not to revoke the order imposing such duties (53).

(100)

Similarly in the UK, the UK Trade Remedy Authority (‘TRA’) determined that the EU anti-dumping duties on ironing boards originating in China were to be transitioned. Therefore, anti-dumping duties on Chinese imports of ironing boards into the EU, i.e. those currently applicable in the EU, were imposed by way of transition to Chinese imports of ironing boards into the UK as well (54).

(101)

These measures in the US and the UK limit Chinese producers’ export markets, making it likely that they would increase their exports to the Union should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.

(102)

In view of its findings on the continuation of dumping during the review investigation period as established in recitals (87) to (89) and on the likely development of exports should the measures lapse as explained in recitals (91) to (101), the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures on imports from the PRC would result in the continuation of dumping.

(103)

The like product was manufactured by 11 producers in the Union during the period considered. They constitute the ‘Union industry’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(104)

The total Union production during the review investigation period was established at around 3,7 million pieces. The Commission established this figure on the basis of the data provided by the applicant, which was cross-checked with the verified data of the sampled companies. As indicated in recital (17), Union producers were selected in the sample representing 55 % of the total Union production of the like product.

(105)

The consumption in the EU was established on the basis of the import volume as recorded in the Article 14(6) database and the sales volumes of the Union industry in the EU as submitted by the applicant. These sales volumes were cross-checked and updated when necessary as regards verified information from the sampled Union producers. As in the Article 14(6) database , import volumes are reported in kg, the Commission converted the figures, if needed, into pieces (units) by using the conversion key that was established in the previous expiry review (55) mentioned in recital (8).

(106)

During the period considered Union consumption developed as follows:

Table 2

Union consumption (pieces)

(107)

During the period considered, consumption in the EU decreased by 12 %. The main part of this decrease occurred between 2020 and 2022. The decrease from 2021 to 2023 occurred during a period of increasing prices in order to cover the sudden increase of input material costs, mainly steel, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine (56). Consumption increased slightly again in the review investigation period compared with the full year of 2023.

(108)

During the period considered imports into the Union from the PRC and market share developed as follows:

Table 3

Import volume (pieces) and market share

(109)

Imports decreased between 2020 and 2022 by 45 %, but subsequently increased again, including in the review investigation period. Overall, they decreased by 35 % during the period considered. However, the market share of Chinese imports remained relatively stable decreasing from 7 % in 2020 to 5 % in 2021 but increasing again to 6 % during the review investigation period. Although total quantities of imports decreased, reflecting also the pattern of Union consumption as described in recital (107), the market share of Chinese imports remained consequential during the whole period considered.

(110)

Due to the absence of cooperation from the exporting producers, there is a lack of information on the product types imported from the PRC. Therefore, the Commission took into account the different TARIC customs codes under which imports of the product under review from the PRC were registered, as set out in recital (30). Based on this, during the period considered between 80 % and 95 % of the ironing boards imported from the PRC were composed of steel (TARIC 7323 93 00 10 and 7323 99 00 10) (57). Among these, the import volume using the relevant TARIC code for stainless steel (7323 93 00 10) increased during the period considered from 19 % of total import volume in 2020 to 36 % in the review investigation period compared with a decline from 75 % to 59 % of total import volumes for the TARIC code covering other steel (7323 99 00 10).

(111)

Due to the absence of cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers the average import price from the PRC had to be established on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the information contained in the Article 14(6) database and using the same conversion key as set out in recital (105). Price undercutting of the imports compared with Union industry prices was established taking into account the information submitted by the applicants and the sampled Union producers.

(112)

The weighted average price of imports into the Union from the PRC developed as follows during the period considered:

Table 4

Import prices (EUR/pieces)

(113)

Import prices from the PRC increased by 56 % during the period considered. Import quantities increased in particular for product types using stainless steel covered by HS code 7323 93 00 (TARIC 7323 93 00 10) yielding higher prices than product types imported under 7323 99 00 (TARIC 7323 99 00 10). The import quantities of the latter decreased during the period considered, as illustrated in recital (110).

(114)

In order to determine price undercutting during the review investigation period, the weighted average sales price of the sampled Union producers charged to unrelated customers on the EU market, adjusted to an ex-works level (i.e. excluding freight costs in the EU and after deduction of discounts and rebates), was compared on a type-by-type basis to the corresponding weighted average price of the imports as established above in recital (111), on a CIF basis, and then including the customs and anti-dumping duty.

(115)

The comparison showed that, when expressed as a percentage of the sampled Union producers’ turnover during the review investigation period, imports from the PRC were undercutting the prices of the Union industry by 4 %. When deducting the anti-dumping duty in place, the undercutting margin amounted to 26 %.

(116)

The imports of ironing boards from third countries other than the PRC were mainly from Türkiye, Ukraine and India.

(117)

The (aggregated) volume of imports into the Union as well as the market share and price trends for imports of ironing boards from other third countries developed as follows during the period considered:

Table 5

Imports from third countries

(118)

The volume of imports from all third countries not subject to measures taken as a whole was about 1,8 million pieces in the review investigation period, translating into a market share of 35 %. Most of these imports came from Türkiye and Ukraine. Over the whole period considered, the volume of imports from all third countries not subject to measures decreased from 41 % in 2020 to 32 % in 2023 before increasing slightly again up to 35 % in the review investigation period.

(119)

Imports from Türkiye remained overall stable during the period considered fluctuating between 0,9 and 1,1 million pieces per year. Total imports amounted to 1,1 million in 2020 and 1,0 million during the review investigation period.

(120)

In contrast to this, imports from Ukraine decreased from 1,0 million to 0,5 million pieces in 2023. The biggest drop occurred from 1,0 million 2021 to less than 0,6 million pieces in 2022 reflecting the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. In the review investigation period, imports from Ukraine started to increase again.

(121)

Imports from India remained relatively stable around 0,2 million pieces annually during the period considered. The volume of imports from other third countries was low, decreasing from 0,2 million pieces to 0,1 million pieces during the period considered.

(122)

In terms of market share, the trends described above translated into an increase by 1 percentage point, from 18 % in 2020 to 19 % in the review investigation period, for Türkiye and a decrease from 17 % market share in 2020 to 12 % in the review investigation period for Ukraine. The market share of India remained stable around 3 % during the period considered. The market share of the remaining third countries decreased from 3 % in 2020 to 2 % in the review investigation period.

(123)

The average price of imports from Türkiye increased from 9 EUR/piece in 2020 to 11,6 EUR/piece in the review investigation period. During the same period, the average price of imports from Ukraine increased slightly from 11 EUR/piece to 14 EUR/piece, while the average price of imports from India increased from 8,99 to 19,36 EUR/piece.

(124)

The assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(125)

As mentioned in recital (17), sampling was used for the assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry.

(126)

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 the questionnaire submitted by the applicants as well as data contained in the Article 14(6) database. The Commission evaluated the microeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the questionnaire replies from the sampled Union producers.

(127)

The macroeconomic indicators are: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity.

(128)

The microeconomic indicators are: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments.

(129)

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

Table 6

Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation

(130)

The total Union production remained stable over the period considered, only increasing in 2022 by 6 % amounting to 4,0 million pieces, but decreasing in 2023 and during the review investigation period where it reached similar levels as in 2020. The peak of production in the year 2022 followed the evolution of sales volume being presented in the following section. The production capacity remained the same during the whole period considered.

(131)

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

Table 7

Sales volume and market share (pieces)

(132)

The sales volume of the Union industry on the EU market remained basically stable with slight fluctuations during the period considered. After an increase from 3,2 million in 2021 to 3,4 million pieces in 2022, sales volume decreased again to 3,3 million in 2023 and, in the review investigation period, was about the same level as in the year 2020 amounting to 3,2 million pieces. Market share of the Union industry followed the trend of sales, increasing in 2022 and 2023 and decreasing again during the review investigation period, overall, it increased by 15 % during the period considered.

(133)

While the sales volume remained about the same level during the period considered, the market share of the EU industry increased by 9 percentage points to 59 %. This is explained by the overall slightly declining Union consumption, as described in recital (107).

(134)

The Union Industry’s production and sales volume remained stable while consumption was declining slightly, resulting in an increase of the Union’s industry’s market share. Employment of the Union industry remained stable throughout the period considered. On this basis, it can be concluded that the Union industry maintained but did not increase its position in terms of production and sales in a slightly decreasing market during the considered period.

(135)

Employment and productivity developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 8

Employment and productivity

(136)

Employment, while fluctuating slightly, remained overall stable during the period considered. More specifically, there was a decrease of employment from 2020 to 2021 followed by an increase in the year 2022 to peak level. Subsequently, the number of employees decreased again to the same level as in 2020, reflecting also the lower production and sales volumes in the year 2023 and the review investigation period when compared with the year 2022.

(137)

Productivity, measured as output (pieces) per person employed per year, remained rather stable with minor fluctuations. Starting in 2020, it increased slightly in 2022 and fell back to the level of 2020 in the review investigation period.

(138)

Dumping continued during the review investigation period at a material level. Chinese exporting producers also continued to undercut the Union industry’s sales prices during the review investigation period.

(139)

At the same time, despite the anti-dumping measures in place, the level of imports from China remained material representing between 5 % and 7 % of the market share in the review investigation period. Therefore, the impact of the magnitude of the actual dumping margin from China on the Union industry persisted and cannot be considered to be negligible.

(140)

However, despite the fact there was still dumping for imports from the PRC, the analysis of the injury indicators shows that the measures in place had a shielding effect and an overall positive impact on the Union industry.

(141)

The average unit sales prices of the sampled 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/pieces)

(142)

Average prices increased by 33 % between 2020 and the review investigation period. This increase follows the sharp rise of costs of production, namely for the most important input material steel, as a consequence of the outbreak of the war in Ukraine (58). The Union industry managed to increase prices, also in the context of a general rise of inflation in the EU caused by the disruption of supply chains as a consequence of the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. However, this trend of price increases following the rise of input material costs ended in the course of the year of 2023. In the review investigation period, the Union industry did not raise the price level anymore also in a context of increasing imports as set out in recitals (109) and (118). Prices even decreased slightly compared with the year 2023.

(143)

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

Table 10

Average labour costs per employee

(144)

The average labour costs increased steadily during the period considered, overall by about 30 %. This increase reflects the overall trend in the EU with nominal wages rising in order to respond to rising costs of living including of energy costs, especially following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine (59).

(145)

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

Table 11

Inventories

(146)

The level of stocks expressed as a percentage of the production volume remained overall stable during the period considered with an increase of the closing stock from 3 % in 2022 to 4 % in 2023.

(147)

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

Table 12

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

(148)

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 EU as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. During the period considered the profitability of the Union industry fluctuated. It first increased between 2020 and 2021 from 3,69 % to 4,61 %, then decreased in 2022 to 3,27 % and increased again in 2023 to 6,85 %. In the review investigation period profitability dropped slightly to 6,52 %. Overall, profitability increased from 3,69 % in 2020 to 6,52 % in the review investigation period, which represented an increase of 2,83 percentage points. Despite the increasing trend, the level of profits did not reach the target profit that was considered adequate for this industry in the previous expiry review (i.e. 7,0 %) (60), except in 2023 where profitability levels were close to this threshold. This is mainly due to the increase in production cost, as set out in recital (142), which was more pronounced from 2020 to 2022 than the increase of sales prices in the same period. In 2023 and in review investigation period, this trend reversed, and sales prices increased more rapidly than the costs which was also reflected in the profitability of these years that increased significantly as compared to 2022.

(149)

The net cash flow from operating activities follows the same trend as profitability. The net cash flow decreased between 2020 and 2022, and especially between 2021 and 2022. This occurred during a period of increasing sales prices, but also increasing costs of production. From 2023 onwards, the net cash flow improved being also substantially higher than at the beginning of the period considered.

(150)

Overall, the amount of annual investment declined by about half between 2020 and 2022. Following this sharp decline, investment levels recovered in 2023 and the review investigation period, while remaining at relatively low levels. Thus, compared with 2020, there was still a fall by 43 %. In the previous expiry review, the Commission observed that the high amounts of annual investment were preceded by high profit rates (61). This is confirmed in the current expiry review. The low profit rates at the beginning of the period considered were followed by a decreasing amount of annual investments, leading to a significant scaling down of investment activities of the Union industry.

(151)

The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. Between 2020 and 2022, the percentage increased with the net book value of investment decreasing while profits remained stable. From 2023 onwards, the rates of return on investment were the highest, where the annual investment amounts were increasing. This shows that the Union industry was able and willing to increase investments, once the profitability was sufficiently high.

(152)

The main injury indicators, such as market share, sales prices as well as profitability and other financial indicators such as investment showed a positive trend. None of the injury indicators showed significantly negative trends. However, profitability remained well below the target profit of 7 % until 2022 and only just reached around this threshold in 2023 and the review investigation period.

(153)

The Union industry’s capacity to increase its sales prices was limited due to the unfair competition of imports from the PRC which, despite the antidumping measures in force, increased in volume during the review investigation period at prices undercutting those of the Union industry. As such, the Union industry was unable to increase its prices sufficiently to compensate for the increase in the cost of production that occurred during the period considered.

(154)

In view of the above, it can be concluded that the situation of the Union industry did not deteriorate during the period considered and that the measures were effective to a certain extent, in particular, in a situation of increasing production costs, and served as a safety net preventing a significant increase of the low priced imports from China which allowed the Union industry to realise some profits and not become loss-making.

(155)

It is therefore considered that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period. However, given the increase in production costs during the period considered, the low level of investments and the profitability that, albeit increasing, remained below the target profit, it can be considered that the Union industry still needs time to consolidate its positive development and is therefore still in a vulnerable situation.

(156)

Overall, on the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.

(157)

Given the findings and conclusions outlined in recitals (152) to (156), the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury originally caused by the dumped imports from the PRC if the measures were allowed to lapse. To this end, the Commission examined the following elements: the production capacity and spare capacities in the PRC, the attractiveness of the EU market, the price behaviour of Chinese exporting producers and likely price levels to the EU should measures be repealed and the effect of future imports on the Union industry’s situation.

(158)

As set out in recitals (91) to (94) based on the information available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the Chinese producers of ironing boards have significant spare capacity and are capable of adding further production capacity.

(159)

As set out in recitals (95) to (101), the Union market remained attractive for Chinese imports as evidenced by the fact that they still entered the Union market in significant quantities representing a market share of 6 % during the review investigation period despite the measures in force.

(160)

While the overall import quantity decreased during the period considered, as mentioned in recital (108), the quantity of imports of stainless-steel ironing boards increased, yielding higher prices than other product types, as pointed out in recital (110) and (113). This trend of increasing imports is expected to accelerate in case measures are repealed. Stainless steel is precisely an area where the producers in the PRC enjoy an advantage over foreign competitors due to persistent government intervention, as already pointed out in the Report.

(161)

For the likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures, it was considered that the Chinese imports were already undercutting the Union industry during the review investigation period. The undercutting margin without taking into consideration the anti-dumping measures amounted to 26 % which was considered as a reasonable estimate of possible future price levels of Chinese imports should the measures be repealed.

(162)

Given the above considerations, should measures be allowed to lapse, the Union industry will be confronted with an important increase of Chinese imports, significantly undercutting the Union industry’s prices. If, in an attempt to remain profitable, the Union industry would maintain its current price levels, it is likely that it would lose sales volume and market share rapidly, even in case of increasing consumption. Losing sales volume would lead to lower capacity utilisation rates and an increase in the average cost of production. This in turn would lead to a deterioration of the financial situation of the Union industry and to a decrease of its profitability which was already below the target profit during the period considered.

(163)

In the alternative, if the Union industry would try to match the lower price levels of the imports in an attempt to keep its sales volume and market share, this would have an immediate negative impact on its profitability level which is currently still below the target profit. There would also be a negative effect on the investments that in any event had not fully recovered during the period considered and also a negative impact on the financial indicators of the Union industry. This situation would have a serious impact on the Union industry’s capacity for its further development. Ultimately, this would lead to a decrease in sales volume and market share and the loss of employment on the Union market.

(164)

On this basis, it is concluded that the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to recur.

(165)

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would not be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, retailers, consumers and users.

(166)

The Commission recalls that, in the previous investigations, the adoption or maintaining of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is a review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures have already been in place, allows for the assessment of any undue negative impact on the parties concerned by the current anti-dumping measures. On that basis, it was examined whether, despite the conclusions on the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.

(167)

As set out in recitals (162) and (163), the investigation showed that the expiry of the measures would likely have a significant negative effect on the Union industry. On the other hand, the continuation of measures would allow the Union industry to maintain or even increase its current price levels and reach sustainable profit margins, thus avoiding periods of financial deterioration. This would allow the Union industry to continue and increase its investments and thus maintain and develop its position on the EU market.

(168)

Therefore, it is concluded that maintaining the anti-dumping measures in force is in the interest of the Union industry.

(169)

No unrelated importers cooperated in the investigation. None of the other potential interested parties made themselves known during the investigation. Like in the previous investigation, no parties representing the interests of end-users, such as associations of consumers, came forward or cooperated in the investigation.

(170)

Based on the findings of the previous expiry review, there were no indications that maintaining the measures would have a significant negative impact on the importers or users that would outweigh the positive impact of the measures on the Union industry. The current review did not bring into light any information that would challenge these findings.

(171)

Furthermore, as set out in recital (116), imports from other third countries not subject to anti-dumping duties accounted for approximately one third of the Union market share contributing to price competition and choice of supply on the market. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no evidence suggesting that the measures in force considerably affected the importers of the product under review or other interested parties.

(172)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of Union interest against maintaining the anti-dumping measures in force.

(173)

On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on likelihood of continuation of dumping, likelihood of recurrence of injury and Union interest, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures on imports of ironing boards from China should be maintained.

(174)

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’.

(175)

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.

(176)

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.

(177)

The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product under review originating in China and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product under review produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in China’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(178)

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 (62). 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.

(179)

Statistics of ironing boards are frequently expressed in pieces. However, there is no such supplementary unit for ironing boards specified in the Combined Nomenclature laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (63). It is therefore necessary to provide that not only the weight in kg or tonnes but also the number of pieces for the imports of ironing boards must be entered in the declaration for release for free circulation. Pieces should be indicated for TARIC codes 3924 90 00 10, 4421 99 99 10, 7323 93 00 10, 7323 99 00 10, 8516 79 70 10 and 8516 90 00 51.

(180)

All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. No comments were received.

(181)

In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (64) 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.

(182)

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,