In brief

  • Nothing extra is paid at the border, for now. From 16 September 2026, customs record separately every consignment of cylindrical alkaline batteries coming from China, but levy no new duty and ask for no guarantee for it.
  • Registration is exactly the step that makes a duty applicable backwards. Its purpose, written into the Commission’s act, is to allow a possible anti-dumping duty to be levied retroactively on precisely the goods registered. Whoever imports during this period has his goods on the list.
  • The window lasts nine months, until 16 June 2027. The batteries concerned are those under customs code 8506 10 11, and the complaint that triggered the investigation speaks of margins between 9% and 134%.
Act: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/2049 of 14 September 2026 making imports of primary cells and primary batteries of alkaline manganese dioxide originating in People’s Republic of China subject to registration with a view to allowing the levy of anti-dumping duties on the imports subject to registration
Published: Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/2049 of 15 September 2026
In force from: 16 September 2026, the day following publication, as Article 2 of the regulation provides

From 16 September 2026, every consignment of cylindrical alkaline batteries brought into the European Union from China is entered in a separate record kept by the customs authorities. It is not a duty and not a ban, and at the counter nothing visible changes for the importer. It is, however, the technical step without which a future anti-dumping duty could not be claimed for goods that have already entered the country, and that concerns directly any firm ordering containers of batteries right now. Romanian importers have grown used in recent years to new obligations that appear at the customs counter without raising the list price, and the registration of imports belongs to the same family: its cost does not show at the moment of clearance, it shows much later.

The measure comes from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/2049, adopted by the European Commission in Brussels on 14 September 2026 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union the following day, on 15 September. Being a regulation, it applies directly in all member states, so it waits for no ministerial order and no government decision in Bucharest in order to take effect in Romania. The basis invoked is Article 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, the Union’s basic act on dumping, that is the sale of a product for export below the price the producer charges on his own domestic market.

What exactly gets registered is described strictly. These are primary cells and primary batteries of alkaline manganese dioxide, cylindrical, not rechargeable, that is precisely the ordinary AA and AAA batteries of the shops, classified under CN code 8506 10 11 and originating in the People’s Republic of China. The CN code is the number from the Combined Nomenclature that the declarant enters in the customs declaration when he classifies the goods; it, and not the commercial name, decides whether a consignment falls under this measure or not. Waste and scrap batteries stay outside it.

The procedure began earlier in the year. On 18 May 2026, VARTA Consumer Batteries GmbH & Co. KGaA lodged a complaint on behalf of producers representing more than 25% of total Union production, and on 2 July 2026 the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal, C series, the initiation of the anti-dumping proceeding. The investigation covers the period from January 2025 to December 2025. 45 days passed between the lodging of the complaint and the initiation of the proceeding, and another 74 from initiation to the decision on registration.

The figures going round come from the complaint, not from the Commission’s findings. The complainants estimate dumping margins between 20% and 219% and an injury elimination level between 9% and 134%. The dumping margin shows by how much the export price falls below the normal value of the product, while the injury margin shows by how much the price at the border would have to rise for European producers to stop being harmed. The Commission states in recital (10) that, at this stage, it is not in a position to estimate the amount of any future liability, and that the figures in the complaint are for information purposes only.

What it changes in practice

The immediate effect is administrative and falls on the customs authorities, not on the importer: they are directed to take the appropriate steps to register entries of the product concerned. The importer files no application, pays no advance and lodges no guarantee under this regulation. His only practical obligation remains the one he always had, to declare correctly the tariff code and the origin of the goods.

The heavy effect comes later. Recital (5) says plainly that registration exists so that anti-dumping duties, if any, can be levied retroactively on the registered imports, where the necessary conditions are met. In other words, goods cleared today without any additional duty can become, months later, the object of an obligation to pay calculated on their customs value. The regulation itself sets neither the amount nor the period covered: recital (6) sends the conditions for retroactive collection to the regulation that would impose definitive duties, if it comes to that.

Concretely, if a firm brings in during this window goods with a customs value of 50,000 euro and, at the end of the investigation, a duty were applied retroactively at the low end of the estimates in the complaint, 9%, the additional bill would be 4,500 euro. At the high end of the same range, 134%, it would be 67,000 euro, more than the goods themselves. These are not figures the Commission stands behind, they are the order of magnitude of the risk taken on by anyone buying now without providing for anything in the contract.

The third effect is one of calendar. Article 1(2) says that registration expires nine months after entry into force, so on 16 June 2027. That is 273 days in which every entry of goods leaves a trace in the customs records. The window may close earlier in fact, if the Commission imposes provisional and then definitive duties in the meantime, because from that moment the duty is paid at the border rather than merely accumulating as a risk.

In another Chinese case the road has already reached its end: since 22 September 2026, alkylphosphonic acids have paid a definitive anti-dumping duty of between 156.7% and 192.2%.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Up to and including 15 September 2026, Chinese alkaline batteries entered the Union like any other goods, with the ordinary customs duty and with no separate record. The anti-dumping investigation had already been open since 2 July 2026, but the initiation of an investigation does not, by itself, tie an eventual outcome to the consignments crossing the border while it lasts. An importer could, in theory, build up massive stocks during the months of investigation and escape entirely the duty imposed at the end.

From 16 September 2026, that particular calculation no longer works. The customs record creates the support on which a future decision can reach back in time. The difference does not show in the price paid at customs, it shows in the fact that imports made in this period are no longer definitively closed at the moment of clearance.

There is one more change of nuance, but with practical weight. Recital (6) shows that the decision to register was taken by the Commission on its own initiative, not at the request of the complainants. For the importer, the consequence is that the measure cannot be anticipated by watching the requests of European industry alone, and that the interval between the initiation of the investigation and the appearance of registration follows no pattern you can rely on.

What has not changed: there is still no anti-dumping duty on these products, neither provisional nor definitive, and the regulation imposes on importers no guarantees, deposits or additional reporting.

One case further along the same procedure has already closed: glass fibre from Egypt now pays 24.1% at customs, countervailing and anti-dumping duty added together.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • European battery producers get real protection against massive imports rushed in ahead of a duty, which would have emptied of effect any measure taken at the end of the investigation.
  • The risk is announced publicly before it materialises, so a firm that reads the regulation can renegotiate its contracts in time.
  • The actual administrative burden falls on the customs authorities, not on the importer, who has no new form to fill in.
  • The scope is delimited by a single tariff code, 8506 10 11, which makes checking quick and free of interpretation.
  • The regulation applies identically in all member states, so no competitive advantage appears for whoever clears customs in a different European port.
  • The Commission expressly accepts, in recital (10), that it cannot estimate the amount, instead of leaving the impression that the percentages in the complaint are already settled.

What remains a problem

  • The importer stays for nine months in an uncertainty he cannot quantify: he knows he carries a risk, but he knows neither how large it is nor over what past period it will stretch.
  • The range of estimates in the complaint, from 9% to 134%, is too wide to serve any practical purpose, such as setting an accounting provision.
  • The regulation does not say in its text how far back retroactive collection can reach, it refers to the applicable legal provisions and to a future act.
  • The expiry date is written nowhere, it has to be calculated by each reader from the date of publication, which invites mistakes.
  • Small firms buying through intermediaries may never find out that their goods fall under a registered tariff code.
  • The eventual cost travels down the commercial chain to the distributor and to the final consumer, who have no lever at all in the procedure in Brussels.

Practical advice

  1. Check in your customs declarations of recent months whether your goods were classified under code 8506 10 11. The name on the invoice does not matter, the code in the declaration does.
  2. Ask your customs broker for written confirmation that consignments entered after 16 September 2026 have been registered. It is the only proof that you know exactly what volume is exposed.
  3. Keep your own record of quantities and customs value for every consignment in the window from 16 September 2026 to 16 June 2027. If a retroactive obligation arrives, it will be calculated on those values.
  4. Put into new contracts with Chinese suppliers a clause that shares or transfers the cost of an anti-dumping duty levied retroactively. Once the goods have arrived, the negotiation is far harder.
  5. Discuss with your accountant whether the exposure has to be presented as a contingent liability in the financial statements, without providing for it at an invented figure.
  6. Watch the Official Journal of the European Union, L series, for the regulation that would impose provisional duties. From that moment the duty is actually paid at the border, and the price calculation changes immediately.
  7. If you have long term contracts at fixed prices with retail, assess now whether you can absorb on your own a rise in cost that may arrive after delivery.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to pay anything extra when I import alkaline batteries from China after 16 September 2026?
No. Regulation (EU) 2026/2049 imposes no duty and asks for no guarantee. The goods are cleared exactly as before, the only difference being that the customs authorities enter them in a separate record.
Then why should I care?
Because registration is the technical condition through which an anti-dumping duty set at the end of the investigation can be levied on goods that entered during this period as well. Recital (5) of the regulation says exactly that.
Which products are covered, more precisely?
Primary cells and primary batteries of alkaline manganese dioxide, cylindrical, not rechargeable, classified under CN code 8506 10 11 and originating in China. These are the ordinary household batteries. Waste and scrap are excluded.
Do rechargeable batteries or button cells fall under the measure?
No, if they are not classified under code 8506 10 11 and do not match the description in Article 1. The check is made on the tariff code in the customs declaration, not on the commercial category.
How long does registration last?
Nine months from entry into force, that is from 16 September 2026 to 16 June 2027, under Article 1(2).
How high could the duty be, if it is imposed?
The regulation sets no amount. The complaint estimates dumping margins between 20% and 219% and an injury elimination level between 9% and 134%, but the Commission states that these figures are for information purposes only.
What does it mean that the duty is set at the lower of the two margins?
It means that, as a rule, the Union does not tax at the level of the dumping found, but only at what is needed for the injury to European producers to be removed. Recital (9) shows an exception, for the case where the investigation finds distortions relating to raw materials.
Do I have to do anything at the tax authority or at the Romanian Customs Authority?
The regulation imposes no new formality on the importer. Registration is done by the customs authorities of their own motion, on the basis of the declarations filed in the usual way.
Does it apply in Romania without a domestic act?
Yes. The regulation is binding in its entirety and applies directly in all member states, under the final formula of the text.

Editorial analysis

The act is short, coherent and contains no contradictions: two articles, eleven recitals, a single tariff code, a single duration. Its problem is not what it says wrongly, but what it chooses not to say. An importer who reads it from beginning to end learns that his goods are registered and that registration serves the retroactive levying of a duty, but learns neither how far back that levying can reach nor on what conditions. Recital (5) refers to the applicable legal provisions, and recital (6) defers the assessment of the conditions to the regulation that would impose definitive duties. For a firm with ten employees and a customs broker, that means the act which creates the risk does not let it measure it.

The second observation only shows when recital (8) is set beside recital (9). The lesser duty rule, invoked through Article 9(4) of the basic regulation, makes the realistic ceiling of a future liability 134%, the upper end of the injury margin, not 219%, the upper end of the dumping margin. The figure of 219% stays relevant only on the hypothesis in recital (9), that of distortions relating to raw materials, where the duty can rise to the level of the dumping margin. In other words, the difference between the two scenarios is 85 percentage points of the customs value, and nowhere does the act signal that this is where the stake lies.

The third observation concerns the asymmetry of the deadlines. The Commission took 74 days from the initiation of the proceeding, on 2 July 2026, to the decision on registration, on 14 September 2026, and another 45 had passed between the complaint of 18 May 2026 and the initiation. The importer, by contrast, is given no deadline and no transition period: the measure enters into force the day after publication. Goods that left a Chinese port on 10 September 2026 and reach Europe in October will be registered, even though the commercial decision was taken weeks before the regulation existed.

What should be changed

  • The expiry date written into the text, not deduced. Article 1(2) says nine months from entry into force. A mention such as until 16 June 2027 would remove entirely the risk of a firm miscalculating the window and believing it is out of it.
  • An express reference to the maximum period of retroactive collection. The act invokes the applicable legal provisions without naming them. A single line with the specific article of the basic regulation would turn an unquantifiable risk into one an accountant can estimate.
  • A notice from the Romanian Customs Authority, in Romanian. The regulation applies directly, but nobody has a duty to bring it to the attention of small importers. An information note published at the customs offices through which the goods enter would cover the firms that do not follow the Official Journal of the European Union.
  • A public timetable for the investigation. The dates of the next stages, even indicative ones, would allow orders to be planned. As things stand, the only marker an importer has is the nine month term of the registration, which says nothing about the moment a provisional duty might arrive.
  • Confirmation on the customs document that the consignment has been registered. A visible mention in the customs system would spare the importer from reconstructing by hand the list of exposed consignments when he has to calculate a retroactive liability.

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, 2026/2049 of 15 September 2026 2 pages PDF, 456 KB

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.