Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1739 of 14 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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 7 thereof,

After consulting the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) On 19 December 2024, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins originating in the Republic of Korea (‘ROK’ or ‘Korea’) and Taiwan (‘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 4 November 2024 by INEOS Styrolution Switzerland SA, Versalis SpA, and Trinseo Europe GmbH (‘the complainants’). The complaint was made by the Union industry of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene 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) 2025/412 (3) (‘the registration Regulation’).

(4) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the Taiwanese and Korean authorities, known importers and users about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.

(5) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(6) The Commission received comments on initiation from the Government of Korea (‘GOK’) and LG Chem.

(7) In its comments on initiation (4), LG Chem submitted that the level of confidentiality granted to the complainants in the complaint was inconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping agreement (‘WTO ADA’) and the corresponding case law. The company specified that the complete redaction of Union industry’s sales prices on the Union free market infringed on the company’s rights of defence as it was not possible to compare those prices with the Korean prices and thus adequately respond to the allegations of injury.

(8) Following LG Chem’s comments, the Commission requested the Union industry to supplement the missing information in the non-confidential version of the compliant. The Union industry provided the requested information.

(9) LG Chem disagreed with the allegations of dumping made in the Complaint, arguing that the claims of unprofitable sales of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene resins (‘ABS’) on the Korean domestic market were based on inaccurate financial information and did not reflect the company’s positive operating and net profits. LG Chem claimed also that the Complaint's calculation of costs and profit margins was also flawed, as it relied on data from unrelated companies and products and failed to account for differences in cost structure and price between standard and premium ABS products. LG Chem argued that the Complaint’s data on raw material prices was unreliable, as it did not reflect the actual quality and cost of raw materials used by Korean ABS producers. The exporting producers failed to provide evidence that would call into question the accuracy of the information provided by the complainant. The Commission found no grounds to disregard it as sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation. Therefore, the claims were rejected.

(11) The Commission recalled that a prima facie finding of material injury requires an examination, inter alia, of the relevant factors as described in Article 5(2) (d) of the basic Regulation. It is not specifically required in Article 5 of the basic Regulation that all injury factors mentioned in Article 3(5) show deterioration in order for material injury to be established. Indeed, the wording of Article 5(2) of the basic Regulation states that the complaint shall contain the information on changes in the volume of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices of the like product on the Union market and the consequent impact of the imports on the Union industry, as demonstrated by relevant (not necessarily all) factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Union industry, such as those listed in Articles 3(3) and 3(5).

(12) Therefore, not all factors must show deterioration in order for material injury to be established. Furthermore, the existence of other factors which may have an impact on the situation of the Union industry does not necessarily imply that the effect of dumped imports on this industry is not material.

(13) The Commission considered that the complaint provided sufficient evidence of the existence of material injury, when it showed that in a situation of declining Union consumption, the imports from the countries concerned increased in absolute and relative terms, and on the contrary, the Union industry’s production and sales volume, as well as its profitability decreased over the period considered.

(14) Furthermore, the GOK and LG Chem claimed that the surge in ABS imports from Korea were caused by the product quality, not by dumping. In this respect, the GOK submitted that the ABS imports from Korea also increased due to the shortage on the Union market caused by the force majeure events in 2021. In addition, both parties claimed that the alleged injury was caused by surging energy prices in the Union.

(15) The Commission considered that the parties did not provide any evidence to support the claims that the increase in imports of ABS from Korea were caused by product quality and short-term force majeure events in 2021. In addition, the Commission found that the complaint sufficiently addressed the issue of rising energy cost at complaint’s stage.

(16) Consequently, the claims concerning the injury and causality analysis included in the complaint as presented in recitals 10 and 14 were rejected.

(17) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

Sampling of Union producers

(18) In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of sales and product mix. This sample consisted of two Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for [38-48] % of sales volume of the like product in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. No comments were received in this respect. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

Sampling of unrelated importers

(19) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(20) Six unrelated importers contacted the Commission with regard to sampling. However, only four of them provided the requested information. They also agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number of replies, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Sampling of exporting producers from ROK

(21) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the Republic of Korea to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the Republic of Korea to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(22) Three exporting producers in the Republic of Korea provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. These exporting producers represented in tonnes over 90 % of Korean imports during the investigation period. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of two on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. These companies account in tonnes for [75-85] % of the total export volume to the Union from ROK in the investigation period. No interested parties provided comments on the sampling.

Sampling of exporting producers from Taiwan

(23) To decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in Taiwan to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Taipei Representative Office in the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(24) Three Taiwanese exporting producers in Taiwan provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. These parties represented 100 % of Taiwanese imports during the investigation. The Commission deemed two out of the three exporting producers to be related and be part of the same group. The Commission decided to investigate this group (the Chimei Corporation/Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation group) and the additional exporting producer, covering 100 % of imports from Taiwan.

(25) The Taiwanese exporting producers Chimei Corporation and Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation contested the decision insofar it considered both parties as related. Chimei Corporation and Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation claimed to be independent parties in respect of the product under investigation manufactured in Taiwan based on namely the absence of mutual shareholding or common board members, managers or employees.

(26) The Commission disagreed that the parties could be considered as unrelated for the purpose of this investigation. As acknowledged by Chimei Corporation and Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation themselves, these companies have a common joint venture in China, thus are related parties in light of Article 127 (1) (g) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (5). The fact that their joint venture is located in China or that joint venture company did not sell the product under investigation to the Union is irrelevant for the purpose of Article 127 (1) (g). The Commission thus confirmed its initial decision.

(27) Notwithstanding the above, given the disproportion of Chimei Corporation versus Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation in terms of volumes of the product under investigation exported to the EU in the IP, upon request by Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation, the Commission exempted Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation from submitting a questionnaire reply and informed the party that the dumping margin calculated for Chimei Corporation would be applied also to Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation. Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation agreed to this proposal.

(28) One exporting producer in Korea requested individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. At this stage of the investigation, the Commission has not taken any decision about the requests for individual examination. The Commission will decide whether to grant individual examination at the definitive stage of the investigation.

(29) The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, to the sampled Union producers, and to all cooperating unrelated importers. The same questionnaires, including questionnaires for users, were made available online (6) on the day of initiation. The Commission also sent a questionnaire requesting the macro-indicators of the Union industry to the complainants.

(31) The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(32) The Notice of Initiation defined the product under investigation as Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins, a thermoplastic copolymer consisting of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene in different proportions, regardless of colour or any other physical or mechanical properties, whether or not further processed or treated to confer specific additional physical properties, with the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number 9003-56-9.

(33) ABS can be produced through two polymerisation processes: the emulsion process and the mass production process. The processes differ in the raw materials and technologies used. The final product has usually the form of pellets and, without addition of pigments, it is of an off-white / yellowish colour.

(34) The emulsion process uses styrene, acrylonitrile and butadiene as feedstocks. Butadiene is first polymerised in water. This forms a rubber latex, i.e. rubber particles dissolved in water. In the second step, styrene and acrylonitrile are polymerised in the rubber latex solution. The product obtained at this stage is not considered a finished product due to its high butadiene content, which makes it unsuitable for industrial use. In its solid form, it is described as dry powder, rubber powder or grafted rubber concentrate. In parallel to the production of dry powder, styrene and acrylonitrile are polymerised to produce a styrene acrylonitrile (‘SAN’) copolymer. To obtain ABS (finished product), dry powder and styrene acrylonitrile copolymer are compounded. In this last, compounding, step, pigments, additives or other (co)polymers may be added to the blend to adapt its properties. The resulting compound is finally dried and pelletised.

(35) The mass production process is more recent and allows for a continuous mass production of ABS. It uses styrene, acrylonitrile, and polybutadiene rubber as feedstocks. Polybutadiene rubber is first ground in a mill and then dissolved in styrene. It is further mixed with chemicals and acrylonitrile. The mass polymerisation reaction is carried out in the presence of a solvent. At the end of reaction train, the monomers, which did not polymerise, and low-boiling compounds are removed from the polymer. Pigments, additives or other (co)polymers may be blended in before ABS is sent for pelletising.

(36) ABS is used in a wide variety of applications, e.g. automotive (vehicle bumpers, decorative elements etc.), household appliances (washing machines, dishwashers etc.), electronics (computer keyboards, mouse, remote controls, phone cases, etc.), furniture, construction (construction pipes and tubes), medical devices, toys (LEGO bricks etc.).

(37) Depending on the application and the process used to manufacture downstream products, users may have a preference for ABS produced through emulsion or mass production process. ABS produced via the emulsion process provides for a glossier surface of the downstream products. ABS produced as a result of a mass production process contains bigger particles of rubber and thus results in a matt surface. Downstream products are usually produced either via extrusion or via injection moulding. In the extrusion process, the shine of the surface depends on the process used to produce ABS, i.e. glossy surface for emulsion ABS and matt surface for mass produced ABS. Under injection moulding, the surface depends on the mould, i.e. mass produced ABS can also result in a glossy surface.

(38) In the course of the investigation, the Commission observed varying practices by the producers, both in the Union and in the countries concerned, regarding the use of CAS Registry number (7). Where ABS was produced as a compound of dry powder and SAN, some producers presented it under one CAS number, namely 9003-56-9, while others used two CAS numbers, namely 9003-56-9 for dry powder and 9003-54-7 for SAN. To avoid any potential misunderstandings stemming from such divergent practices, the Commission decided to remove the reference to a CAS number from the definition of the product under investigation.

(39) Consequently, the product under investigation is as Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins, a thermoplastic copolymer consisting of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene in different proportions, regardless of colour or any other physical or mechanical properties, whether or not further processed or treated to confer specific additional physical properties (‘the product under investigation’ or ‘ABS’).

(40) The product concerned is the product under investigation originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, currently falling under CN code 3903 30 00 (‘the product concerned’).

(42) The Commission decided at this stage that those products are therefore like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(44) In this respect, the Commission wishes to clarify that copolymers or compounds that consist only of acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene fall under the scope of this investigation provided that styrene is predominant in such copolymer or blend. Such copolymers or compounds shall be referred to as ABS in the present investigation.

(45) As explained in recital 34, dry powder is a semifinished product. Although it already contains all three comonomers, butadiene is predominant and thus it does not meet the condition of styrene content mentioned in recital 44. Consequently, dry powder does not fall in the scope of this investigation.

(46) Furthermore, ABS (as defined in recital 44) compounds with other (co)polymers and/or additives, such as but not limited to pigments, antistatic agents, UV stabilisers, flame retardant substances, glass fibres, fall in the scope of this regulation as long as ABS is predominant in the compound.

(47) Therefore, flame retardant ABS and glass reinforced ABS are covered by the scope of this investigation as those product types are produced as compounds where the ABS content is predominant. On the other hand, transparent ABS is not covered by the present investigation. Transparent ABS is produced as a compound of ABS and methyl methacrylate, so called MABS. ABS is not predominant in that compound and thus not falling in the product scope of this investigation.

(48) Finally, copolymers consisting of acrylonitrile, butadiene, styrene and other comonomers fall under the scope of this investigation as long as acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene are predominant in the copolymer.

(49) In its questionnaire reply, Chimei requested flame retardant ABS be excluded from the scope of this investigation as it allegedly was not produced in the Union.

(50) Contrary to the company’s allegations, flame retardant ABS is produced by the Union producers. Therefore, the Commission rejected the claim.