Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1505 of 25 July 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of epoxy resins originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand and terminating the investigation on imports of epoxy resins originating in the Republic of Korea

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 1 July 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of epoxy resins (‘epoxy resins’) originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand (the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand are further considered as ‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(2) The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 6 June 2024 (‘the complaint’) by the Ad Hoc Coalition of Epoxy Resin producers (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of epoxy resins in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.

(3) The Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2714 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 30 January 2025, the Commission provided parties with a summary of the proposed duties and details about the calculation of the dumping margins and the margins adequate to remove the injury to the Union industry. Interested parties were invited to comment on the accuracy of the calculations within three working days. Aditya Birla Chemicals (Thailand) Limited (‘Aditya Birla’) submitted comments on the pre-disclosure document. Although the invitation for comments was limited to the accuracy of the calculations (4), Aditya Birla submitted a number of comments on substance. These comments were subsequently repeated after the provisional disclosure and are addressed below.

(5) On 27 February 2025, the Commission published the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of epoxy resins originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Thailand by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/393 (5) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(6) Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), a Thai exporting producer: Aditya Birla; a Taiwanese exporting producer: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (‘Nan Ya’); Committee of epoxy resin and applications of China petroleum and chemical industry federation (‘ERC’), acting on behalf of the Chinese epoxy resins producers (6); the complainant; and two unrelated importers: QR Polymers and De Monchy, filed written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings within the deadline provided by Article 2(1) of the provisional Regulation.

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Aditya Birla, Nan Ya, the complainant, ERC as well as QR Polymers and De Monchy.

(8) The Commission continued to seek and verify all the information it deemed necessary for its final findings. When reaching its definitive findings, the Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and revised its provisional conclusions when appropriate.

(9) The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations, on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of epoxy resins originating in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand and terminate the investigation on imports of epoxy resins originating in the Republic of Korea (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with Aditya Birla on 23 May 2025.

(11) On 2 June 2025, the Commission issued an additional final disclosure document explaining the adjustments made based on the comments received in response to the final disclosure of 8 May 2025, and their justification.

(12) Aditya Birla submitted comments on the additional final disclosure, requesting that the Commission ensure equal treatment of all interested parties and take into account the comments submitted in response to the final disclosure. In the additional final disclosure, the Commission only addressed the adjustments made following the comments on the final disclosure. Contrary to the allegation, all interested parties were treated equally as all comments on the final disclosure had been duly addressed.

(13) A hearing took place with Aditya Birla on 11 June 2025 and with QR Polymers on 20 June 2025.

(14) Following the provisional disclosure ERC, reiterated its claim set out in recitals 6 to 8 of the provisional Regulation, invoking a severe breach of its procedural rights of defence on the account of deficient non-confidential summaries and absence of analysis of certain injury factors listed in Article 3(3) and (5) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, Aditya Birla reiterated its claim on excessive confidentiality granted by the Commission to the complainant and invoked a violation of the right of defence and effective judicial protection. Aditya Birla argued that due to the lack of access to reliable, non-redacted information and evidence, the companies had to act without full certainty and could not ascertain the reliability of the data on which the Commission relied to establish the findings in the provisional Regulation.

(15) As set out in the provisional Regulation (see recitals 10 to 12 and 14), the non-confidential version of the complaint and its exhibits, including further data placed on the open file following the initiation and ultimately the Commission’s extensive provisional findings in the provisional Regulation permitted the parties a reasonable understanding of the substance included in these documents. Moreover, the parties did not show how more detailed non-confidential summaries or an additional injury analysis in the complaint would impact the current proceeding and protect the procedural rights of the parties.

(16) The Commission conducted an objective and extensive scrutiny of the allegations made by the complainant before initiating the investigation and later carried out an independent fact-finding investigation, resulting in the provisional findings. Hence, the Commission did not rely on the complaint and allegations made therein and made its own findings instead at both provisional and definitive stage, based on an objective examination of relevant data independently obtained in the course of this proceeding. The arguments of ERC and Aditya Birla were therefore dismissed.

(17) In response to the provisional disclosure, Aditya Birla further contended that the Commission failed to explain why the conflation of microeconomic and macroeconomic indicators was deemed reasonable. As already explained in recital 10 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission accepted ranges for the microeconomic and macroeconomic indicators due to the structure of the Union industry. In any event, the ranges given for the injury indicators provided sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted and to assess the trends of all the injury indicators, especially since additionally an index for the period considered was given for each indicator.

(18) Following the provisional disclosure, Aditya Birla argued that its rights of defence were breached due to the change in the investigation period, which is different in the complaint and in the proceeding itself. More specifically, the exporting producer called into question the legal basis for the Commission’s unilateral modification of the investigation period. As set out in recital 42 of the provisional Regulation, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, an investigation period must, normally, cover a period of no less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of proceedings. Within this requirement the Commission has a discretion in selecting the investigation period, as far as such selection allows for a representative finding, with the use of information that is as recent as possible, and there is no legal requirement in the basic Regulation that the period chosen for the investigation be the same as the one chosen by the complainants. In this case, the Commission selected the investigation period ending three months before the initiation of the investigation, which is in line with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation as well as the established practice, while also allowing for collection of the data from the Union, exporting producers and other statistical sources. Aditya Birla’s allegation is therefore rejected.

(19) No comments were received concerning sampling. Therefore, the conclusions in recitals 21 to 34 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(20) Following the provisional disclosure, Nan Ya requested the exclusion of specialty epoxy resins, including novolac epoxy resins, brominated epoxy resins, and BPF epoxy resins, from the product scope. Nan Ya reiterated its request also in response to the final disclosure without providing new evidence in this respect. That Taiwanese exporting producer argued that these products are produced from different raw materials, have different physical, technical, and chemical characteristics (for being more chemically and thermally stable and resistant or having low levels of carbon embedded in them), specialized applications, and limited interchangeability with conventional epoxy resins, and are perceived differently by consumers. Additionally, Nan Ya requested the exclusion of solid epoxy resins, which according to Nan Ya are produced through a different process (where additional production steps are involved) and have limited interchangeability with conventional liquid epoxy resins. According to Nan Ya, excluding these products from the product scope will not impede the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures, as they account for a small proportion of the Union market, domestic Union production, and imports. In addition, De Monchy submitted in response to the provisional disclosure that the Commission should consider differentiating bio-based and specialty grades of epoxy resins from other resin types for more accurate classification and tariff implications.

(21) First, pursuant to point 2 of the Notice of Initiation, all interested parties wishing to submit information on the product scope were invited to do so within 10 days of the date of publication of the Notice (therefore by 11 July 2024). Neither Nan Ya nor De Monchy came forward with any comments or submissions on this matter within that deadline.

(22) Second, the disputed epoxy resin types all fall under the product definition as set out in Article 1 of the provisional Regulation, which was not challenged by the parties. It is emphasised and it clearly transpired from the complaint, the Notice of Initiation, as well as the provisional Regulation that both conventional base epoxy resins as well as specialty resins are considered the product concerned. It is the basic chemical composition and raw materials used that define the epoxy resins in this case – all of the epoxy resins as defined in Article 1 of the provisional Regulation, including the specialty resins or solid epoxy resins are polymers or prepolymers containing reactive epoxy groups and use epichlorohydrin and an aliphatic or aromatic alcoholic component as foundational elements and this makes them the product concerned.

(23) It is not disputed that the types of epoxy resins described in recital 20 might have various applications and slightly different characteristics, that they might have additional production steps, an enhanced performance, better stability or chemical resistance, that they are more environmentally friendly or that demand for these resins and correspondingly their domestic production and imports are limited. However, the basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics of the various epoxy resin types are similar, all having thermosetting properties and produced using a similar production process. Furthermore, both specialty and basic resin types are purchased from the producers by the same customers. Hence, the customer perception is that these product types are similar, and the epoxy resins would be sold to the customers using the same or similar sales channels. Also, the fact that specialty resins have been produced in the Union or imported in smaller quantities is insufficient to exclude them from the scope of the proceeding. In any event, Nan Ya and De Monchy did not provide relevant and verifiable data, which would allow the Commission to properly assess the claim for product exclusion. Nan Ya’s and De Monchy’s claims were therefore rejected as unjustified.

(24) In response to the provisional disclosure, QR Polymers also claimed that the Commission erred by not considered curing agents in its analysis, while curing agents use epoxy resin as a raw material and are offered in a package with epoxy resins. The Commission recalled that the Notice of Initiation as well as Article 1 of the provisional Regulation clearly defined the product scope of the investigation. Products downstream from the product concerned, albeit using the product concerned as a raw material, or products sold together with a product concerned are however not covered by the present investigation. QR Polymers reiterated its claim following the final disclosure, arguing that curing agents are not a downstream use of epoxy resins, but a parallel one, and are not just any component part of an arbitrary package, but are vital for making the resin work, and vice versa. The Commission restated that curing agents themselves are not part of the product scope of this investigation, irrespective of whether they are downstream products or products used in parallel with the epoxy resins. In view of the above, QR Polymer’s claims had to be dismissed.

(25) In the absence of any further comments regarding the product scope and the like product, the conclusions reached in recitals 44 to 55 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(26) In the absence of any comments, the findings in Section 3.1.1 of the provisional regulation are confirmed.

(27) Following disclosure, the Commission received comments from the ERC. First, the ERC argued that the Report fails to meet the standards of impartial and objective evidence and evidence of sufficient probative value. It argued that the fact that the Report has been drafted with a deliberate objective in mind, namely facilitating Union industries to lodge a complaint in the area of trade measures, automatically removes any likelihood for an impartial and objective analysis of the Chinese economy. The ERC also submitted that the probative value of the Report is doubtful as the Report deliberately omits factual circumstances, elements, and conclusions, which would contradict or weaken the partial purpose for which it has been prepared.

(28) Second, the ERC argued that Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation appears to be incompatible with the WTO Antidumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’). It claimed that Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA does not recognize the concept of significant distortions and that it does not allow the use of data from an appropriate representative country or international prices to construct the normal value. Specifically, Article 2.2 of the WTO only permits using the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and profits when constructing the normal value.

(29) Third, according to the ERC, Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation seems incompatible with Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO ADA and with the Appellate Body’s interpretation thereof, provided in the EU – Biodiesel (Argentina) (DS473) case (hereafter ‘EU-Biodiesel’) which established that investigating authorities must use the product costs actually incurred by producers or exporters for the calculation of constructed normal values. As such, the ERC requested the Commission to accept the domestic prices and costs reported by the cooperating Chinese exporters.

(30) Regarding the ERC’s claim that the Report is not objective or impartial, the Commission notes that the Report is a comprehensive document based on extensive objective evidence, including legislation, regulations and other official policy documents published by the GOC, third party reports from international organisations, academic studies and articles by scholars, and other reliable independent sources. It was made publicly available since December 2017 so that any interested party would have ample opportunity to rebut, supplement or comment on it and the evidence on which it is based. The Commission has since reviewed the Report and published an updated version in April 2024. The Commission notes that the ERC did not provide any rebuttal on the substance and evidence contained in the Report. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(31) Further, the Commission considers that the provisions of Article 2(6a) are fully consistent with the European Union’s WTO obligations and the jurisprudence cited by the ERC. At the outset, the Commission notes that the WTO Report on EU – Biodiesel did not concern the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, but of a specific provision of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. In any event, WTO law as interpreted by the WTO Panel and the Appellate Body in EU – Biodiesel allows the use of data from a third country, duly adjusted when such adjustment is necessary and substantiated. The existence of significant distortions renders costs and prices in the exporting country inappropriate for the construction of normal value. In these circumstances, Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation envisages the construction of costs of production and sale on the basis of undistorted prices or benchmarks, including those in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of development as the exporting country. The Commission therefore rejected this claim by the ERC.

(32) Following provisional disclosure, Aditya Birla contested the decision by the Commission to use Malaysia as source of undistorted benchmark for epichlorohydrin (ECH) and caustic soda, whereas Thailand was chosen as source for all other factors of production, SG & A and profit.

(33) The Commission clarified that, for only for two factors of production (‘FOP’), i.e. ECH and caustic soda, for which the imports from China accounted for 75 % and 62 % of all imports respectively, the Commission reverted to Malaysia, as the prices of those two FOPs into Thailand were considered distorted. Aditya Birla did not explain in its comments why this would be an error in assessment and this comment was therefore dismissed.