In brief

  • The 13.1% duty on glass fibre brought in from Egypt is not expiring; it stays in force. The measure was due to lapse in June 2025, five years after it was imposed. The European Commission opened a review two days before the deadline, kept it open for 15 months and decided on 22 September 2026 that the duty is maintained, at exactly the same level.
  • On top of it sits an anti-dumping duty of 11%, imposed in April 2026, so 24.1% extra is paid at customs. At the average import price of 2024, EUR 712 per tonne, the two duties together come to EUR 171.6 per tonne: EUR 93.3 of countervailing duty and EUR 78.3 of anti-dumping duty. Neither of the two acts provides for a rule of mutual reduction, so the percentages add up.
  • There is no preferential level for anyone. The table has a single name, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E., TARIC additional code C540, at 13.1%, and the residual line „All other imports originating in Egypt”, code C999, is also at 13.1%. The gap between the named company and the rest is zero, because Jushi Egypt is the only producer of glass fibre in Egypt.
Act: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/2107 of 22 September 2026 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products (GFR) originating in Egypt following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Published: Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/2107 of 23 September 2026
In force from: 24 September 2026, that is, the day following publication, under Article 2 of the regulation

The European Commission has decided that glass fibre brought in from Egypt goes on paying a countervailing duty of 13.1% at customs, and the decision was taken on the very last day European law still allowed. The mechanism is the same one the Union used for the water treatment additive brought in from China, taxed at up to 192.2%, with one substantive difference: there the duty was new, here it is six years old and has not changed at all. The product is called in the act „continuous filament glass fibre products”, abbreviated to GFR, and it covers three concrete things: chopped strands of not more than 50 mm, rovings and filament mats. Recital 36 describes it as the raw material most used to reinforce resins in the composites industry, and composites go into wind turbine blades, car parts, boats, electrical equipment, tanks, pipes and construction materials. Anyone buying this product from Egypt declares it at customs under one of the codes 7019 11 00, ex 7019 12 00, 7019 14 00 or 7019 15 00 and pays the duty at the moment of clearance.

The figure in the table does not, however, say what a consignment actually costs. The countervailing duty of 13.1% is calculated on the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, and sits on top of the ordinary customs duty. Added to it is an anti-dumping duty of 11% on the same product and the same origin, imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/831 of 14 April 2026, which covers Bahrain, Egypt and Thailand. Recital 2 of the new act confirms both levels, and the text nowhere provides for a rule against double imposition, that is, a reduction of one duty by the value of the other. The result, calculated by us on the average import price of 2024: at EUR 712 per tonne, the two duties come to EUR 171.6 per tonne, and at the volume recorded in the same year, 151,285 tonnes, that would mean around EUR 14.1 million of countervailing duty and EUR 11.8 million of anti-dumping duty collected across the whole Union, so nearly EUR 26 million a year.

For the Romanian buyer nothing changes on 24 September 2026, and that is precisely the news. Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 says that measures remain in force pending the outcome of the review, so the duty was levied without interruption throughout the 15 months the investigation lasted. That is also why a provision any importer should look for in an act of this kind is absent: the regulation does not make imports subject to registration and provides for no retroactive collection, because there was no window in which goods could enter duty-free. By comparison, the original 2020 regulation had an Article 2 with a separate level of 8.7% applicable to imports previously registered. Here Article 2 contains only the entry into force.

What it changes in practice

The direct effect is one of cost, borne by the importer at customs clearance and passed down the chain to composites processors. The 13.1% applies to all imports originating in Egypt, whatever the supplier, and the TARIC additional code that customs asks for on the declaration is C540 for Jushi Egypt goods and C999 for the rest. Because the level is identical, the choice of code does not change the sum payable, which makes this act an exception among trade defence measures: as a rule the residual level is the highest one, and a wrong code costs money.

The second effect concerns the market. The European glass fibre industry entered the period considered with ten producers and came out with eight: Krosglass S.A. stopped production in Poland, and Electric Glass Fiber NL, B.V. went into insolvency, as recital 271 shows. The number of employees fell from 3,240 to 2,681, that is, 559 jobs in three years, a fall of 17.3% which we recalculated from table 8. Production came down from 616,388 to 529,828 tonnes, and installed capacity from 711,692 to 665,311 tonnes. Over the same period imports from Egypt rose from 102,756 to 151,285 tonnes, by 47.2%, and their share of the Union free market went from 12% to 18%.

The third effect is the one the act invokes as its reason: keeping the duty leaves the European industry room on price. During the investigation period, the average selling price in the Union was EUR 1,182 per tonne and the unit cost of production EUR 1,435, so the price covered only 82.4% of the cost, with a loss of EUR 253 per tonne. Profitability of sales was minus 10.6%, after minus 7.3% in 2023 and plus 8% in 2022. The undercutting found against European prices was 24.2%, and in that calculation the countervailing duty of 13.1% was already added to the import price.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The level of the duty has not changed. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L series, no. 201 of 25 June 2020, provided for the same 13.1% for Jushi Egypt and the same 13.1% for the residual line. Nor have the TARIC codes changed, C540 and C999 being the same as in 2020.

What has changed is the wording of the residual line, and the difference is worth reading closely. In 2020 the line read „All other companies”, that is, it referred to producers. In 2026 it reads „All other imports originating in Egypt”, that is, to goods. It is the deletion of a practical question: what happens to a consignment whose factory of origin cannot be established. With the new wording the answer is clear, the duty applies to the import. Since both levels are 13.1% in any event, the change moves no sum now, but it would if the two levels ever parted company.

The context has changed too, in three ways. On the one hand, since April 2026 the same goods also pay an 11% anti-dumping duty, which was not the case during the investigation period of this review, which ended on 31 December 2024. On the other hand, Jushi Egypt increased its capacity by 200,000 tonnes over the period considered and announced further expansion plans in 2025, as recital 226 shows. Finally, after the investigation period, between the third quarter of 2024 and the second of 2025, the average price of Egyptian imports fell by a further 25%, down to EUR 709 per tonne.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The level is single and predictable: 13.1% for any import originating in Egypt, with no invoice declarations and no formal conditions that could be missed, unlike measures with individual levels.
  • There is no retroactive collection and no registration of imports, so no importer can be caught with goods correctly cleared and invoiced again afterwards.
  • European composites producers buying fibre from within the Union stay in competition with an increased import price, and the three producers verified by the Commission account for about 63% of European production, so domestic supply exists.
  • The Commission found that the European industry has spare capacity and the technical know-how for fine rovings, the users’ argument to the contrary being rejected in recitals 345-347, so the alternative source of supply is not theoretical.

What remains a problem

  • The two duties add up with no rule of adjustment between them, and 24.1% on a basic input feeds into the cost of turbine blades, pipes and composite parts.
  • The period of application is missing from the act. The duration can be found only by reading Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037, which sets five years from the conclusion of the review, so around September 2031.
  • No importer, trader or user from Romania took part in the investigation. The two users who replied to the questionnaire are Tolnatext from Hungary and Rymatex from Poland, and the interests of Romanian buyers appear nowhere in the file.
  • The duty has existed since 2020, and over those years the Egyptian market share grew rather than fell. Recital 348 even says that the measure does not prevent Jushi Egypt from supplying the Union, which can be read the other way round as well: the 13.1% level did not change the trajectory.

Practical advice

  1. Check the additional code in TARIC before every declaration. For Egypt there are only two, C540 and C999, with the same level of 13.1%, but the wrong code remains a declaration irregularity even when the sum payable is identical.
  2. Recalculate your purchase price with both duties, not just one. At EUR 712 per tonne, the 24.1% adds EUR 171.6 per tonne, and for a 25-tonne truck that means about EUR 4,290 extra, of which EUR 2,332 is countervailing duty.
  3. Bear in mind that the basis for import value added tax includes customs duties, so the EUR 171.6 per tonne also enters the VAT base, not just the cost.
  4. If you have contracts running with Egyptian suppliers, check who bears the duty under the delivery term. On DDP delivery the cost is the seller’s, on FOB or CIF it is the buyer’s.
  5. Compare offers from Malaysia, the United Kingdom and within the Union before treating Egypt as the cheapest source. During the investigation period, the average price of imports from other third countries was 34% higher than the Egyptian one, but that was the price before the 24.1% of duties.
  6. Make a note of the September 2031 horizon. Under Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037, a notice of impending expiry is published in the final year, and that is the moment at which a buyer can submit observations in the procedure.

Frequently asked questions

How much do I pay in total at customs for glass fibre from Egypt?
On top of the ordinary customs duty you pay 13.1% of countervailing duty, under this regulation, plus 11% of anti-dumping duty, under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/831 of 14 April 2026. Together they come to 24.1% of the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty. Neither of the two acts provides for one duty to be reduced by the value of the other.
Does anything change for me on 24 September 2026?
No. The 13.1% duty has existed since 2020 and was levied without interruption, including during the 15 months of the review, because Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 keeps measures in force until the investigation is completed. The news is that the duty has not expired, not that it has appeared.
Is there any Egyptian company with a lower duty?
No. The table in Article 1(2) has a single named company, Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry S.A.E., with TARIC additional code C540 and 13.1%, and the residual line „All other imports originating in Egypt”, code C999, is also at 13.1%. According to recital 226, Jushi Egypt is the only producer of glass fibre in Egypt, which explains why the two levels coincide.
Can I be charged retroactively for goods brought in before publication?
Not under this regulation. The act contains no provision making imports subject to registration and no retroactive collection, because the measures never ceased. The original 2020 regulation had such a provision, a level of 8.7% on previously registered imports, but it concerned imports of 2020, not of 2026.
How long does the duty apply?
The regulation does not say. The duration follows from Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037: a definitive countervailing measure expires five years from the date of the conclusion of the most recent review which covered both subsidisation and injury. This review was concluded on 22 September 2026, so the deadline falls around September 2031, unless a new review is opened in the meantime.
Why do goods from Egypt pay a duty, if the subsidies at issue are Chinese?
Because the Egyptian producer is ultimately controlled by the Chinese group CNBM and operates in the China-Egypt Suez Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone, and the Commission took the view that the Chinese support falls within the agreement between the two States and is therefore attributable to Egypt. The Government of Egypt contested that construction, arguing a breach of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies, and the Commission rejected its arguments in recitals 13-18. Recital 229 says directly that the Chinese investments in Egypt were made in order to circumvent the measures applied to Chinese glass fibre.

Editorial analysis

The act solves a real problem and solves it with the minimum of noise: the figure is not touched, the table is not made more complicated, and the importer has nothing new to learn. In a field where formalism costs money, that counts. The interesting part lies elsewhere, in how little room for manoeuvre the Commission had. The original measures entered into force on 26 June 2020, so the five years under Article 18(1) fell due on 26 June 2025. The applicant, the association Glass Fibre Europe, lodged the request on 21 March 2025, five days before the three-month deadline laid down in Article 18(4). The Commission opened the review on 24 June 2025, two days before expiry. And Article 22(1) of the same regulation requires completion within 15 months of opening, that is, by 24 September 2026, failing which, under point (a), the measures expire. The regulation was adopted on 22 September 2026, published on 23 and entered into force on 24 September 2026, exactly on the last day of the deadline. The 455 days of investigation leave no margin at all: a delay of 48 hours would have wiped out the duty, not postponed it.

The second observation concerns the gap between the levels in the table, precisely where an importer looks. Here the gap is zero, and that is not a drafting slip, it is the consequence of Egypt having a single producer of glass fibre. It is still worth saying plainly, because in trade defence acts the usual rule is the opposite, and anyone reading by analogy may assume there is a better level to be had. There is not. No invoice declaration, no undertaking and no producer code is required in order to avoid a higher residual level, because the residual level is not higher. The only trace of that asymmetry remains in the heading of the table, which speaks in the singular of „the company listed below”, although one of the two lines designates a category of imports, not a firm. Without legal consequence, since both lead to 13.1%, but the wording was changed compared with 2020 precisely so that the residual line would catch the goods rather than the firm, and the heading of the table did not follow the change.

The third observation is more uncomfortable. The duty has existed since 2020 and over all that time the Egyptian share of the Union free market rose from 12% to 18%, imports by 47.2%, the average import price fell by 10%, and two European producers disappeared. The Commission justifies maintaining the measure by what would happen without it, and it is right to do so, but the figure of 13.1% has not been reassessed against an outcome which, measured on the indicators in its own tables, is a defeat. The 24.2% undercutting found during the investigation period was calculated with the countervailing duty already included in the import price, which means something simple: at the current level, the duty was not closing even half the gap. The 11% of anti-dumping duty added in April 2026 changes the arithmetic, but it comes from another file. An expiry review does not allow the level to be recalculated, only maintained or repealed, and the instrument for recalculation is the interim review under Article 19. The fact that it has not been used in six years, with Egyptian capacity up by 200,000 tonnes in the meantime, is a choice, not a constraint.

What should be changed

  • The duration of the measure should be written into the regulation, not inferred. An article saying that the duty applies for five years from the date of conclusion of the review would spare every importer a cross-reference to Article 18(1) of the basic regulation. In practice, it would move the expiry date out of the lawyer’s calculation and into the text the buyer reads.
  • The heading of the table in Article 1(2) should speak of the product, not of the company. The wording „manufactured by the company listed below” does not cover the residual line, which is not a company. A wording such as „of the product described in paragraph 1, in the categories below” would close the only ambiguity in reading the operative part.
  • The relationship with the anti-dumping duty should be stated expressly, at least in a recital. The act mentions the 11% in recital 2 and returns to it in recital 336, but nowhere confirms that the duties add up without adjustment. One line would spare importers a question at customs and would make 24.1% a figure that can be cited rather than inferred.
  • The market share should be reported against the basis the table actually uses. According to recital 245, the share was established by comparing imports with consumption at Union level, but the figures in table 2 come out only when related to free market consumption: 151,285 out of 841,354 tonnes give 18%, whereas the ratio to total consumption, 936,119 tonnes, gives 16.2%. Both are legitimate, but the first is not the one announced, and the difference of 1.8 percentage points runs through the whole injury analysis. A four-word clarification in recital 245 would make the table verifiable by anyone.
  • An interest that nobody defended should at least be sought out. The file contains replies from two users, in Hungary and Poland, and from no importers. For a measure being extended a second time for five years, a direct request to the composites processing associations in Member States with no fibre production of their own would bring into the Union interest analysis the party that pays the duty and that is now missing from it.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/2107 of 23 September 2026 49 pages PDF, 1.3 MB

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.