EU imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on China polyamide yarn

The European Commission has finalized a year-long trade case by imposing definitive anti-dumping duties of 60 percent to 67.6 percent on polyamide yarn imported from China. The decision is intended to protect roughly 2,000 manufacturing jobs across Croatia, Italy, Spain, Romania and Slovenia, but it could raise sourcing costs for textile manufacturers supplying Europe’s sportswear, hosiery and technical-fabric sectors.

Published as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1823, the measures cover a European market worth about €400 million.

The duties follow an investigation launched in July 2025 after a complaint from the Ad Hoc Coalition of European Producers of Yarns of Polyamide. Provisional measures took effect in March 2026 and have now been made definitive. Fujian-based Eversun Group will face a duty of 60 percent, Highsun Group 67.6 percent, other cooperating Chinese exporters 62.2 percent, and non-cooperating exporters the maximum rate of 67.6 percent.

A dispute over how to calculate fair prices

The investigation was conducted under Article 2(6a) of the EU’s anti-dumping regulation, which allows the Commission to disregard domestic prices and costs when it finds significant market distortions. In this case, the Commission concluded that China’s polyamide-yarn sector met that threshold and constructed a benchmark using Türkiye as a representative market economy.

Following submissions from the complainant coalition, the Commission excluded low-priced Russian polyamide-polymer imports from its Turkish raw-material benchmark after determining that post-2022 market conditions had artificially depressed their value. The change increased the benchmark cost level and contributed to higher final dumping margins for some Chinese producers.

A familiar divide between producers and users

The case highlights a recurring tension in European trade policy: protecting upstream manufacturing capacity while increasing costs for downstream users.

European yarn producers argued that dumped imports from China were suppressing prices and preventing domestic capacity from being fully utilized. Textile manufacturers and users, by contrast, warned that duties could increase raw-material costs at a time when many European processors already face pressure from higher energy, labor and compliance expenses.

Companies including Carvico, Heynen and a coalition of Polish hosiery producers argued during the investigation that certain yarn specifications are not currently produced within the EU and that higher import costs could weaken the competitiveness of downstream manufacturers.

The Commission rejected requests to exclude those products from the scope of the measures, concluding that European producers retain the technical capability to manufacture the specifications in question even if they are not currently doing so at scale. It also dismissed concerns about relocation of downstream production, noting that few users provided verifiable evidence quantifying potential economic impacts.

No retroactive duties, but scrutiny remains

Importers avoided one outcome they had feared. The Commission found no evidence of a significant surge in imports between the opening of the investigation and the introduction of provisional measures, meaning the duties will not be applied retroactively to registered imports made during the investigation period.

However, Brussels has signaled that it will closely monitor potential circumvention. Under existing EU trade-defense rules, unusual changes in export behavior could trigger a separate anti-circumvention investigation.

What it means for sporting goods supply chains

Polyamide yarn is an upstream input used in performance fabrics found across running, outdoor, cycling, swimwear and compression-apparel categories. The duties target yarn imports rather than finished garments or branded products, but any increase in raw-material costs can move through the value chain if textile mills pass those costs on to fabric buyers.

The clearest beneficiaries are European yarn manufacturers that argued Chinese imports were undermining investment and capacity utilization.

The bigger question for the sporting goods industry is whether textile processors, fabric makers and apparel suppliers can absorb the additional costs or whether they ultimately flow downstream to brands sourcing performance materials within Europe.

In that sense, the case is less about yarn than about the broader trade-off at the heart of European industrial policy: how far the bloc should go to protect strategic manufacturing capacity when the cost is borne elsewhere in the supply chain.