(1)

By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 (2), the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) imposed countervailing duties on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2)

Recital 1422 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 stated that a mutually agreed solution inter alia with individual exporting producers could be identified and implemented even after the imposition of definitive measures. In this context, the Commission has received an undertaking offer by an exporting producer of the product concerned, Volkswagen (Anhui) Automotive Co., Ltd. (‘VW (Anhui)’).

(3)

Having determined, after informing the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), that sufficient evidence existed regarding the relevant criteria set out in Articles 13 and 19 of the basic Regulation, on 4 December 2025 the Commission initiated on its own initiative a partial interim review with regard to imports into the Union of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (4) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(4)

That partial interim review is limited in scope to the examination of the form of the measure and, specifically, to the examination of the acceptability and practicability of an undertaking that had been offered by VW (Anhui), an exporting producer in the People’s Republic of China.

(5)

In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the interim review, the undertaking offered by the exporting producer and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(6)

Comments on the initiation were received from the Government of China (GOC), the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘CCCME’) and from Volkswagen (Anhui) together with its related importer in the EU, SEAT S.A. The comments were addressed as set out in the following recitals. None of the interested parties requested a hearing on the initiation of the investigation.

(7)

The GOC and the CCCME claimed that the CCCME, on behalf of the group of Chinese exporting producers, had already previously proposed a comprehensive solution representing the collective position of the industry. They criticised the Commission for having engaged in bi-lateral discussions with individual enterprises. The GOC emphasised that the Commission should strictly abide to the principle of non-discrimination and continue its dialogue with the Chinese authorities. Finally, both parties requested the Commission to disclose more details regarding the terms of the undertaking offered by VW (Anhui).

(8)

The Commission recalled that Article 13(1)(b) of the basic Regulation mentions that any exporter can undertake ‘to revise its prices […] as long as such exports benefit from countervailable subsidies, if the injurious effect of the subsidies is thereby eliminated’. This is also recognised in recital 1422 of the definitive Regulation, where individual exporting producers are also expressly mentioned.

(9)

In this specific case, the Commission has received an undertaking offer by an individual company that contained sufficient elements to be considered practicable and compliant with the conditions set out in Article 13 of the basic Regulation, which was the basis of the initiation of the current review. This was the only undertaking offer formally submitted to the Commission since the imposition of the definitive countervailing measures. Therefore, the approach of the Commission cannot be considered discriminatory, given that there was no other similar situation that should have been treated in the same way. The Commission rejected the claim.

(10)

As regards these parties’ request to disclose more details of the undertaking offer, the Commission recalled that a detailed open version of the undertaking offer was made available to all interested parties and allowed interested parties to reasonably understand the substance of the information provided in confidence within the meaning of Articles 13(4) and 29(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission also recalled that in accordance with Article 29(5) of the basic Regulation it shall not reveal any information that it received pursuant to the basic Regulation for which confidential treatment had been requested. Therefore, the request to provide further information on the elements of the undertaking offer was rejected.

(11)

VW (Anhui) in their comments reiterated the main features of the undertaking offered, and concluded that, it in its view, the undertaking offer fulfils the criteria set in Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

(12)

On 12 January 2026, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to accept the undertaking offered by VW (Anhui) and thus amend the regulation imposing definitive measures. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(13)

Following the disclosure the GOC and VW (Anhui) with SEAT S.A. provided their comments. The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate

(14)

The GOC in their submission reiterated its comments submitted already at the initiation of the investigation emphasising that the Commission should adhere to the principle of non-discrimination and WTO rules, and evaluate each price undertaking application from Chinese enterprises in an objective and impartial manner. The GOC also requested that the Commission should disclose more details regarding the price undertaking clauses of the relevant companies.

(15)

Since the GOC has not provided any new argumentation regarding the facts and considerations presented in the recitals above, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 8 to 10. As already set out in recital 10, in accordance with Article 29(5) of the basic Regulation the Commission shall not reveal any information that it received pursuant to the basic Regulation for which confidential treatment had been requested. Therefore, the Commission confirmed that the request to provide further information was rejected.

(16)

VW (Anhui) and SEAT S.A. emphasised in their joint submission on the final disclosure that they advanced the preparations for the application of the proposed undertaking. The companies reaffirmed their commitment to comply with all terms the undertaking offer.

(17)

None of the parties requested a hearing.

(18)

Therefore, the Commission decided to accept the undertaking offer by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/328 (5).

(19)

The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,