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

	2020	2021	2022	2023	IP
Closing stock (tonnes)	[21 435 -23 740 ]	[22 626 -25 059 ]	[17 778 -19 690 ]	[14 771 -16 359 ]	[17 696 -19 598 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	106	83	69	83
Closing stock as a percentage of production	9,1	8,2	8,6	7,5	8,7
Index (2020=100)	100	90	94	82	96
Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.

• (163) The volume of closing stock followed the trend of production. It increased in 2021 but decreased in the rest of the period considered.

• (164) The Union industry reacted to the reduced sales volume by reducing its production volume. Therefore, the share of closing stocks on the production volume remained rather stable (7,5-9 %) over the whole period considered.

4.5.3.4.   Profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

• (165) Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments of the sampled Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 10

Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments

	2020	2021	2022	2023	IP
Profitability of sales in the Union to unrelated customers (% of sales turnover)	[8,8  - 9,8 ]	[21,4  - 23,7 ]	[9,5  - 10,5 ]	[3,2  - 3,5 ]	[2,0  - 2,2 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	242	107	36	22
Cash flow (EUR)	[57 906 617 -64 133 135 ]	[116 728 213 -129 279 633 ]	[56 910 215 -63 029 593 ]	[28 405 472 -31 459 823 ]	[8 229 799 -9 114 724 ]
Index (2020=100	100	202	98	49	14
Investments (EUR)	[4 441 317 -4 918 878 ]	[6 604 016 -7 314 125 ]	[11 057 695 -12 246 694 ]	[5 366 849 -5 943 929 ]	[4 855 409 -5 377 496 ]
Index (2020=100)	100	149	249	121	109
Return on investments (%)	29	92	40	13	4,0
Index (2020=100)	100	311	136	45	13
Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.

• (166) The Commission established the profitability of the sampled Union producers by expressing the pre-tax net profit of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales. The profitability increased in 2021, when the economic circumstances for the sector, in the Union, were exceptionally favourable. With high demand and import prices being affected by the high ocean freight prices in 2021 (see recital 131), the Union industry was able increase its own sales prices on the Union market and generate a profit of [21,4-23,7] %. Although the increase cost of ocean freight continued in the first half of 2022, it was coupled with an increase in energy cost, including the cost of oil and gas (see recital 131), which are the ultimate raw materials for the production of the monomers of which ABS consists. Therefore, in 2022 the profitability more than halved as compared to 2021, although the sales price remained rather high. Subsequently, the profitability continued to drop significantly, reaching [3,2-3,5] % in 2023 and [2,0-2,2] % in the investigation period.

• (167) Net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. The trend in net cash flow followed the trend of profitability. The net cashflow temporarily increased in 2021. In the rest of the period considered it declined and in the investigation period, the net cashflow reached only 14 % of its 2020 level.

• (168) Investments of the Union industry fluctuated between 4,4 million EUR and 5,9 million EUR in 2020, 2023 and in the investigation period. They increased significantly in 2022 (more than [6,6-7,3] million EUR) and in particular in 2022 ([11-12,2] million EUR).

• (169) The return on investments is the profit in percentage of the net book value of investments. The significant reduction in profitability was reflected also in the declining return on investments. It increased temporarily in 2021 to the level of 92 %. In the investigation period, it however reached only the level of 4 %.

• (170) If follows from the above that the sampled Union producers’ ability to raise capital was negatively affected by the declining profitability and net cash flow.

4.6.   Conclusion on injury

• (171) The Union market enjoyed a strong post-covid recovery hike in 2021, but it has been strongly shrinking as from 2022. Over the period considered, however, the Union industry lost sales at a rate that was markedly higher than the decline in Union consumption. This led to a significant reduction of the Union industry’s market share from 72,4 % to 62,8 %. The Union industry’s production volumes (-16 %) declined in line with its sales volumes (-19 %).

• (172) Apart from volume injury, the Commission also established price injury. Whereas the Union industry was able to achieve healthy profits in the first three years on the period considered, this was not the case in 2023 and the investigation period anymore when its profitability had declined to very low levels. The trend of the other financial indicators (cash flow, investments, return on investments) was similarly negative as from 2022 or 2023.

• (173) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

5. CAUSATION

• (174) In accordance with Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission ensured that any possible injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports from the countries concerned was not attributed to the dumped imports. These factors are: imports from third countries, export performance of the Union industry, consumption, cost of production, production capacity of the Union industry, shortage of supply on the Union market, and users’ preferences, product quality and after-sales services.

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (175) The cumulated import volumes from the countries concerned increased by 53 % (see table 2) while the consumption in the Union declined by 6 % (see table 1). This resulted in a market share increase of the countries concerned by 12 percentage points from 19 % to 31 %. At the same time, the market share of the Union industry went down by almost 10 percentage points from 72 % to 63 %.

• (176) The average prices of imports from Korea and Taiwan were lower than the prices of the Union industry throughout the whole period considered. In the investigation period, they undercut the Union industry prices by 20,9 % to 30,9 %. Such import prices resulted in price suppression on the Union market, as a result of which the Union industry was not able to make healthy profits. In the investigation period, sales prices of the Union industry were only marginally above its cost of production.

• (177) Lotte claimed that ABS imports from Korea only increased because 2020, a year affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, was used as a basis year for the evaluation of trends. The company argued that in the period considered, the imports from Korea merely recovered to pre-pandemic level.

• (178) Similarly, LEGO argued that the increase in imports from Taiwan can only be observed because the period considered starts in 2020, a year affected by the pandemic related economic slowdown. The party insisted that 2021 should have been used as the beginning of the period considered.

• (179) Indeed, year 2020 was marked by a general reduction in economic activity due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which affected not only Union industry but also imports. On the other hand, the year 2021 cannot be considered representative of normal economic activity on the Union market of ABS either due to the significant post-pandemic economic rebound. In this context, even if the absolute increase of imports was to be disregarded, the evolution of the market share of the imports from the countries concerned clearly shows that they disproportionally grew relatively to the size of the Union market. In addition, several injury indicators (production and sales volumes, market share, profitability, cash flow, return on investments) show a negative trend in the investigation period even when compared to the pandemic year of 2020. This only confirms the injurious impact of increased dumped imports from Korea and Taiwan. The claim that 2020 is inappropriate to use as base year of the period of analysis was therefore rejected.

• (180) LG Chem argued that the injury of the Union industry was not caused by the imports from Korea based on the following reasons:

• (a) The Union industry’s production volume experienced the largest decline between 2021 and 2022 when the import prices of Korean ABS increased;

• (b) On the contrary, despite a slight decrease in Korean import prices between 2023 and the investigation period (of the complaint), the production volume of the Union industry increased,

• (c) The profitability of the Union industry continued to decline between 2022 and 2023 when the ABS imports from Korea were stable.

• (181) It must be noted that the Commission’s findings regarding the injury suffered by the Union industry are based on the analysis of trends that could be observed over the whole period considered. Individual changes of economic indicators between individual years do not provide a sufficiently representative picture of the effects of imports from the countries concerned on the economic situation of the Union industry. The Commission does not dispute that the prices of imports from the countries concerned grew over the period considered. However, their levels were always and increasingly below the price levels that the Union industry achieved on the Union market. These low prices, combined with the high import volumes from Korea and Taiwan, suppressed the prices on the Union market and did not anymore allow the Union industry to achieve healthy profits in 2023 and the investigation period. With regard to the production volumes in the investigation period, the Commission found that contrary to the data for the investigation period of the complaint, the production volumes slightly declined. Thus, the claim of LG Chem was rejected.

• (182) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the imports from China caused material injury to the Union industry. Such injury had both volume and price effects.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   Imports from third countries

• (183) The quantity of imports from other third countries developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 11

Imports from third countries

Country	Indicator	2020	2021	2022	2023	IP
United States	Volume (tonnes)	11 180	14 715	6 952	11 191	11 758
United States	Index (2020=100)	100	132	62	100	105
United States	Market share (%)	1,7	1,9	1,0	1,8	1,9
United States	Average price	2 006	2 103	3 492	2 862	2 434
United States	Index (2020=100)	100	105	174	143	121
China	Volume (tonnes)	862	2 156	1 967	4 565	7 109
China	Index (2020=100)	100	250	228	529	824
China	Market share (%)	0,1	0,3	0,3	0,7	1,2
China	Average price	2 224	3 366	3 226	1 965	1 893
China	Index (2020=100)	100	151	145	88	85
Saudi Arabia	Volume (tonnes)	4 481	4 950	4 965	6 341	5 704
Saudi Arabia	Index (2020=100)	100	110	111	141	127
Saudi Arabia	Market share (%)	0,7	0,6	0,7	1,0	0,9
Saudi Arabia	Average price	1 024	1 966	1 996	1 342	1 421
Saudi Arabia	Index (2020=100)	100	192	195	131	139
Other third countries	Volume (tonnes)	39 240	31 439	26 521	19 225	12 305
Other third countries	Index (2020=100)	100	80	68	49	31
Other third countries	Market share (%)	6,0	4,1	3,9	3,1	2,0
Other third countries	Average price	1 424	2 269	2 512	2 084	2 258
Other third countries	Index (2020=100)	100	159	176	146	159
Total of all third countries except the countries concerned	Volume (tonnes)	55 764	53 260	40 405	41 322	36 876
Total of all third countries except the countries concerned	Index (2020=100)	100	96	72	74	66
Total of all third countries except the countries concerned	Market share (%)	8,6	6,9	5,9	6,8	6,1
Total of all third countries except the countries concerned	Average price	1 498	2 239	2 598	1 965	1 937
Total of all third countries except the countries concerned	Index (2020=100)	100	149	173	131	129
Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).	Source: Eurostat (Comext database).

• (184) Imports from the US and Saudi Arabia remained rather stable for the most part of the period considered with a market share ranging from 1,0 % to 1,9 % for the US and 0,6 % to 1,0 % for Saudi Arabia, but without significant variation between both ends of the period considered. Imports from China significantly increased in the period considered from 0,1 to 1,2 % market share. Import prices from China decreased 15 % throughout the period considered, reaching 1 893 euro/tonne during the investigation period.

• (185) Total imports from third countries (including those named above individually) however decreased by almost 20 000 tonnes, which led to a drop on their market share by 2,5 percentage points from 8,6 % in 2020 to 6,1 % in the investigation period.

• (186) On that basis, the Commission concluded that while the imports from other third countries did not cause injury to the Union industry, given its volumes and prices, Chinese imports might have contributed to injury to a small extent. However, they did not attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

5.2.2.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (187) The volume of exports of the Union producers developed over the period considered as follows:

Table 12

Export performance of the sampled Union producers

	2020	2021	2022	2023	IP
Export volume of Union producers (tonnes)	123 832	147 064	116 518	93 235	123 558
Index (2020=100)	100	119	94	75	100
Average price of Union producers (EUR/tonne)	1 666	2 276	2 922	2 357	2 325
Index (2020=100)	100	137	175	142	140
Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.	Source: Sampled Union producers.

• (188) The export sales volumes of the Union industry fluctuated during the period considered but they were at similar levels in the investigation period as compared to the first year of the period considered. Export sales volumes were at their lowest in 2023, when they were 25 % below the export sales volumes of 2020 and the investigation period.

• (189) In relative terms, however, the export sales of the Union industry increased. While the export sales volumes represented no more than one quarter of the Union sales volumes in 2020, they were close to one third of the Union sales volume in the investigation period.

• (190) Moreover, average export sales prices were very similar to and in most years slightly above Union sales prices during the period considered.

• (191) On that basis, the Commission concluded that the export performance of the Union industry did not attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

5.2.3.   Consumption

• (192) The consumption on the Union market declined during the period considered, except for 2021, the year of post-Covid economic recovery. However, whereas consumption decreased by 40 000 tonnes over the period considered, the Union industry sales on the Union market went down by double of that. At the same time, the imports from the countries concerned increased by 65 000 tonnes, even in a shrinking market.

• (193) The drop in consumption may thus have contributed to the injury but only to a limited extent, as the sales volumes lost to the countries concerned are higher than the drop in consumption, and prices of those additional imports supressed the prices that the Union industry could achieve.

5.2.4.   Cost of production

• (194) The GOK, LG Chem and Lotte argued that the injury suffered by the Union industry should be attributed to increase in cost of production in particular to the high energy cost on the Union market. In addition, Lotte claimed that the increase in cost of production was also caused by the unusually high ocean freight cost that the Union industry had to bear when importing raw materials.

• (195) Indeed, the cost of production of the Union industry overall increased over the period considered while reaching their maximum in 2022, which is aligned with the global energy crisis caused by the post-pandemic economic recovery and the consequences of the military aggression of Russia against Ukraine ¹⁰. The global increase in energy cost and cost of oil and natural gas, which are the ultimate raw materials used to produce the acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene monomers, did not however only affect the Union producers but also producers in the countries concerned.

• (196) Indeed, the changes in energy supply mix following the economic sanctions against Russia might have amplified the increase in energy cost for Union producers and thus contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, in conditions of fair competition, the Union producers would have been able to reflect the increased cost in their sales prices. This was nevertheless prevented by the price pressure from dumped imports from the countries concerned.

• (197) The cost of ocean freight from Asia was unusually high only in 2021 and 2022 ¹¹. It however affected not only the prices of imported raw materials but also the prices of ABS imports from the countries concerned. In addition, contrary to what the party (Lotte) claimed, the sampled Union producers procured a majority of the main raw materials in Europe, i.e. they were not affected by the cost of ocean freight from Asia.

• (198) Considering that (a) the energy crisis of 2022 affected energy cost globally, (b) the increased ocean freight cost in 2021 and 2022 may have influenced the cost of raw materials used by the sampled Union producers only marginally, and (c) in the absence of unfair competition, the Union industry would be able to recover its cost of production and achieve reasonable profits, the Commission concluded that the effect of the increased cost of production was not of such nature that it would attenuate the causal link between the injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports from the countries concerned.

5.2.5.   Increased production capacity of the Union industry

• (199) LG Chem argued that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by its inefficiencies. In particular, the party noted that the Union producers increased their production capacity in spite of the drop in the Union consumption.

• (200) The capacity increase of 9 % in 2021 and 2022 was a result of projects that were underway long before the decline in the Union consumption occurred. These projects were not carried out by the sampled companies, i.e. the relevant micro indicators (cost of production, profitability, return on investments) were not affected by the increased production capacity. The only affected injury indicator is the capacity utilisation, which dropped from 65 % in 2020 to 50 % in the investigation period (with a temporary increase to 71 % in 2021). The capacity utilisation would have decreased even with an unchanged production capacity (level of 2020). Instead of reaching only 50 % in the investigation period, it would have declined to 54 % (with a temporary increase to 75 % in 2021).

• (201) Therefore, the findings of injury as presented in section 4 were in fact not affected by the increase in production capacity. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the increase in production capacity did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.2.6.   Shortage of supply on the Union market

• (202) The GOK, LG Chem and Lotte argued that the increase in imports from Korea did not cause injury to the Union industry. It rather occurred as a response to the shortage of supply on the Union market. In this respect, the parties highlighted that two Union producers declared force majeure in 2021.

• (203) The Commission acknowledged that two Union producers declared force majeure events in 2021. In February 2021, Ineos (the sampled entity in Germany) experienced a shortage of supply of acrylonitrile ¹². In September 2021, Versalis suffered a break-down of a furnace ¹³. As a consequence, the companies reduced their output for the duration of the force majeure, which in both cases lasted for a period of 2-5 months.

• (204) These events could have had a negative effect on production and sales volumes, potentially also profitability of the Union producers affected by the disruptions. They, however, occurred only in two plants and not simultaneously, and thus presented an opportunity for the Union producers not affected by the disruptions to increase their production and sales. As the relevant periods (2021, potentially beginning of 2022) show an exceptionally positive economic situation of the Union industry, the force majeure events were unlikely to negatively affect the performance of the Union industry as a whole. Finally, considering their short-term nature, the force majeure events could not explain the long-term trend of growing imports from the countries concerned.

• (205) Therefore, the Commission concluded that the force majeure events did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.2.7.   Users’ preferences, product quality and after-sales services

• (206) The GOK, LG Chem and Lotte submitted that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by its inability to meet users’ preferences and needs for specific ABS grades, such as emulsion ABS, flame retardant ABS, insufficient product quality and inadequate after-sales services, in particular with regard to the emulsion ABS, where the product quality and after-sales services represent decisive factors instead of price.

• (207) The Commission noted that emulsion ABS, as well as flame retardant ABS, are produced by the Union industry, although the flame retardant grades in smaller quantities.

• (208) The parties alleging that the Union industry had insufficient product quality and provided inadequate after-sales services did not bring forward any evidence supporting their claims. On the contrary, the Commission found that the Union industry remained the main supplier of ABS for users of emulsion ABS with high quality requirements. Thus, the product quality and after-sales services of the Union industry could not have been a reason for the loss of market share.

• (209) On this basis, the Commission concluded that the factors mentioned in recital 206 could not have in any way contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

5.3.   Conclusion on causation

• (210) The Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors on the situation of the Union industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The Commission found that the imports from third countries (other than China), export performance of the Union industry, consumption, production capacity of the Union industry, shortage of supply on the Union market, and users’ preferences, product quality and after-sales services did not contribute to the material injury suffered by the Union industry. On the other hand, it found that the effects of imports from China and the increase of the Union industry’s cost of production on the negative developments in the economic situation of the Union industry, alone or together, could only have been limited.

• (211) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded at this stage that the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, considered individually or collectively, did not attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury. The injury is clear, in particular as regards production and sales volumes, market share, profitability, cash flow, and return on investments.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

• (212) To determine the level of the measures, the Commission examined whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove the injury caused by dumped imports to the Union industry.

6.1.   Injury margin

• (213) The injury would be removed if the Union Industry were able to obtain a target profit by selling at a target price in the sense of Articles 7(2c) and 7(2d) of the basic regulation.

• (214) In accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic Regulation, for establishing the target profit, the Commission took into account the following factors: the level of profitability before the increase of imports from the countries concerned, the level of profitability needed to cover full costs and investments, research and development (‘R&D’) and innovation, and the level of profitability to be expected under normal conditions of competition. Such profit margin should not be lower than 6 %.

• (215) As a first step, the Commission established a basic profit covering full costs under normal conditions of competition. The two sampled Union producers provided a calculation of the profitability of the product under investigation for ten years prior to the initiation of this investigation. The Commission verified the data and determined the basic profit as a weighted average profit achieved by the sampled Union producers before the increase of imports from the countries under investigation, namely in the period of 2017 to 2019. Such profit margin was established at [12,0-12,8] %.

• (216) One sampled Union producer provided evidence that its level of investments, R&D and innovation during the period considered would have been higher under normal conditions of competition. The Commission verified this information and concluded that the provided internal documentation and communications showed that the company did not carry out certain investments due to the situation on the Union market. To reflect this in the target profit, the Commission calculated the difference between investments, R&D and innovation (‘IRI’) expenses under normal conditions of competition as provided by the sampled Union producer and verified by the Commission with actual IRI expenses over the period considered. Such difference, expressed as a percentage of turnover, was [0,1-0,5] %.

• (217) That percentage was added to the basic profit mentioned in the recital 216, leading to a target profit of [12,1-13,3] % for the product types produced by that sampled Union producer.

• (218) In accordance with article 7(2d) of the basic Regulation, as a final step, the Commission assessed the future costs resulting from Multilateral Environmental Agreements, and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and of ILO Conventions listed in Annex Ia that the Union industry will incur during the period of the application of the measure pursuant to Article 11(2). Only one sampled Union producer provided evidence of having incurred compliance cost, such as internal data and compliance cost audit report. Based on the evidence available, which was supported by the companies’ reporting tools and forecasts, the Commission established an additional cost of [12-15] EUR/tonne, which was reflected in the non-injurious price mentioned in recital 220 for the product types produced by that sampled Union producer.

• (219) On this basis, the Commission calculated a non-injurious price of 2 502 EUR/tonne on average for the like product of the Union industry by applying the above-mentioned target profit margin (see recital 218) to the cost of production of the sampled Union producers during the investigation period and then adding the adjustments under Article 7(2d) on a type-by-type basis.

• (220) The Commission then determined the injury margin level on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average import price of the sampled cooperating exporting producers in countries concerned, as established for the price undercutting calculations, with the weighted average non-injurious price of the like product sold by the sampled Union producers on the Union market during the investigation period. Any difference resulting from this comparison was expressed as a percentage of the weighted average import CIF value.

• (221) The injury elimination level for ‘other cooperating companies’ and for ‘all other imports originating in country concerned’ is defined in the same manner as the dumping margin for these companies and imports (see recitals 82 to 84 for Korea, and 109 and 110 for Taiwan).

Country	Company	Dumping margin (%)	Injury margin (%)
Korea	LG Chem	3,7	66,6
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,8	62,9
Korea	Other cooperating companies	4,3	64,8
Korea	All other companies	5,8	66,6
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,8	51,7
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7	67,8
Taiwan	All other companies	21,7	67,8

6.2.   Conclusion on the level of measures

• (222) Following the above assessment, provisional anti-dumping duties should be set as below in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty (%)
Korea	LG Chem	3,7
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,8
Korea	Other cooperating companies	4,3
Korea	All other companies	5,8
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,8
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7
Taiwan	All other companies	21,7

7. UNION INTEREST

• (223) Having decided to apply Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it could clearly conclude that it was not in the Union interest to adopt measures in this case, despite the determination of injurious dumping, in accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, users, consumers.

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (224) The investigation has shown that the Union industry suffered material injury caused by the increasing volume of dumped imports from Korea and Taiwan. The injury materialised in particular in a strong decline in production and sales volumes and a continuous erosion of its profit margin, due to the price suppression caused by these imports. Should the anti-dumping measures not be imposed, the Union industry would become lossmaking which would further compromise its viability. On the contrary, the imposition of the measures will help to restore fair competition on the Union market and thus allow the Union industry to recover.

• (225) The Commission therefore concluded that the imposition of the measures would be in the interest of the Union industry.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers

• (226) Initially, four out for the 20 known unrelated importers cooperated in the investigation by providing a questionnaire reply. Only two of them however provided sufficient cooperation. The other two failed to provide certain requested information and/or supporting evidence, or did not reply to requests for corrections and additional questions and/or replied with delays significantly beyond the set deadlines. Therefore, their data was taken into account only to such an extent that it could be considered reliable.

• (227) Three additional importers registered as interested parties and made submissions mostly related to the interests of their customers, i.e. users of the product under investigation. Those comments were addressed in section 7.3 below.

• (228) Finally, several importers formed an ad hoc Coalition for an Open and Competitive EU ABS Market, which also on their behalf submitted comments concerning Union interest. Those comments were addressed in the appropriate sections of this regulation.

• (229) The four (partially) cooperating unrelated importers accounted for 28 % of imports of ABS originating in the countries concerned. Some of them did not only import ABS from the countries concerned but were also part of the sales channels of the Union industry.

• (230) The unrelated importers reported high profitability on their trading of ABS (above 10 %). Trading with ABS represented a minor share on their overall business with less than 10 % of their turnover originating from the sales of ABS notwithstanding its origin.

• (231) Furthermore, considering the level of the measures the imports from the countries concerned are unlikely to fully disappear. Finally, there are other sources of ABS available on the Union market, namely imports from third countries such as the US, China and Saudi Arabia.

• (232) Considering the above, the Commission concluded that the measures will not have disproportionally negative effect on unrelated importers and traders.

7.3.   Interest of users and consumers

• (233) ABS is used in a wide variety of applications (see recital 36). Only two users, however, cooperated in the investigation: LEGO, a producer of toys in Denmark, and Valeo Vision, a supplier of car parts located in France. LEGO is one of the largest individual users of ABS on the Union market accounting for [5-10] % of the Union consumption in the investigation period.

• (234) Both companies procured substantial quantities of ABS from the Union industry, supplemented with imports from the countries concerned. In addition, the share of ABS in the total cost of the products using ABS was below 4 %. Finally, both users achieved healthy profits, for example LEGO’s global profits exceeded 25 % in the long term ¹⁴.

• (235) Considering the above findings and the level of the proposed measures, the Commission concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures will not have a disproportionally negative effect on users.

• (236) The GOK, LG Chem, Lotte, the Coalition for an Open and Competitive EU ABS Market and five importers ¹⁵ and two users ¹⁶ made comments regarding the interest of the users in the Union. They argued that the imposition of measures would increase the production cost of users, limit the availability of ABS on the Union market in general, as well as reduce the users’ access to specific ABS grades (e.g. emulsion ABS, flame retardant ABS) and to pre-approved ABS meeting the specific requirements of users, and finally prevent the users from benefiting from high quality technical support and after-sales services.

• (237) With regard to the users’ production cost, the Commission noted that the considering the findings for the two cooperating users and the level of the measures, a disproportionally negative impact of the measures on the users is highly unlikely. The Union producers’ installed capacity currently exceeds the demand in the Union. Should the demand pick up in the future, imports from third countries are also available although in limited extent. In addition, the Union producers offer a wide range of ABS grades, including emulsion ABS and flame retardant ABS, and there is no evidence on the file that quality of products, technical support and after-sales services offered by the Union industry would be lacking in any way. Finally, the objective of the measures is not to prevent imports of ABS from the countries concerned but to restore fair competition on the Union market. In this respect, and considering the level of the measures, it is unlikely that the anti-dumping duties will block the users’ access to ABS originating in the countries concerned. Consequently, the Commission rejected the claims.

• (238) Taking into account the limited share of ABS on total cost of final products in the toys and automotive industries, the effect on the sales price of the consumer products (toys, cars) will be negligible.

7.4.   Other factors

• (239) The GOK recalled the investments of the Korean ABS producers in the Union and argued that the measures would put in jeopardy the over 80 million EUR of investments in factories and R&D (with more investment under consideration), more than 300 jobs created in the Union, and more than 80 million EUR of profits reinvested in the local facilities.

• (240) Contrary to that, the Commission considered that the imposition of the measures might serve as an incentive for the exporting producers with facilities in the Union to expand their presence on the Union market via local subsidiaries.

• (241) The GOK, LG Chem, Lotte, the Coalition for an Open and Competitive EU ABS Market and three importers ¹⁷ pointed out that the Korean exporting producers invested heavily in the production of sustainable products, i.e. mass-balanced ABS. Limiting the access to those products might motivate the users to switch to alternatives with higher CO2 footprint, such as polyamide or polycarbonate, which would in the end hinder the Union from reaching its European Green Deal goals and from the transition to a circular economy.

• (242) The Commission agreed with the importance of transition to a circular economy and the green goals. First, without further details on the contribution of mass-balanced ABS, and specifically mass-balanced ABS from the countries concerned, to the reduction of CO2 emissions (including in comparison to alternative products), the Commission was not able to examine the impact of the measures on green goals of the Union. Furthermore, the Union industry has also invested into sustainable solutions and currently offers a range of mass-balanced ABS, whether originating in mechanically or chemically recycled inputs or using bio feedstock. Finally, as mentioned above the main aim of the measures is not to prevent imports from the countries concerned altogether but to restore level playing field on the Union market.

• (243) Consequently, the Commission concluded that the measures will not have a disproportionately negative effect on the investments carried out by the exporting producers in the Union and the green goals of the Union as raised by the parties and described in recitals 240 and 242.

7.5.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (244) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of ABS originating in Korea and Taiwan at this stage of the investigation.

8. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

• (245) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, provisional measures should be imposed to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports.

• (246) Provisional anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports of ABS originating in countries concerned, in accordance with the lesser duty rule in Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation. The Commission compared the injury margins and the dumping margins recital 222 above. The amount of the duties was set at the level of the lower of the dumping and the injury margins.

• (247) On the basis of the above, the provisional anti-dumping duty rates, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs duty unpaid, should be as follows:

Country	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty (%)
Korea	LG Chem	3,7
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,8
Korea	Other cooperating companies	4,3
Korea	All other imports originating in country concerned	5,8
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,8
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7
Taiwan	All other imports originating in country concerned	21,7

• (248) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of this investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during this investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned originating in the countries concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other imports originating in country concerned’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

• (249) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the application of the individual anti-dumping duties. The application of individual anti-dumping duties is only applicable upon presentation of a valid commercial invoice to the customs authorities of the Member States. The invoice must conform to the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation. Until such invoice is presented, imports should be subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to ‘all other imports originating in country concerned’.

• (250) While presentation of this invoice is necessary for the customs authorities of the Member States to apply the individual rates of anti-dumping duty to imports, it is not the only element to be taken into account by the customs authorities. Indeed, even if presented with an invoice meeting all the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of this regulation, the customs authorities of Member States must carry out their usual checks and may, like in all other cases, require additional documents (shipping documents, etc.) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration and ensure that the subsequent application of the lower rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (251) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rates and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

9. REGISTRATION

• (252) As mentioned in recital 3, the Commission made imports of the product concerned subject to registration. Registration took place with a view to possibly collecting duties retroactively under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation.

• (253) In view of the findings at provisional stage, the registration of imports should be discontinued.

• (254) No decision on a possible retroactive application of anti-dumping measures has been taken at this stage of the proceeding.

10. INFORMATION AT PROVISIONAL STAGE

• (255) In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission informed interested parties about the planned imposition of provisional duties. This information was also made available to the general public via DG TRADE’s website. Interested parties were given three working days to provide comments on the accuracy of the calculations specifically disclosed to them.

• (256) Chimei, LG Chem and Lotte provided comments on the pre-disclosure that referred to the methodology used to calculate the dumping margin. Since these comments did not directly concern the accuracy of the calculation, they will be addressed, where appropriate, at the definitive stage of the investigation.

11. FINAL PROVISIONS

• (257) In the interests of sound administration, the Commission will invite the interested parties to submit written comments and/or to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings within a fixed deadline.

• (258) The findings concerning the imposition of provisional duties are provisional and may be amended at the definitive stage of the investigation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country of origin	Company	Provisional anti-dumping duty (%)	TARIC additional code
Republic of Korea	LG Chem	3,7	89UC
Republic of Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,8	89UD
Republic of Korea	Other cooperating companies listed in Annex	4,3	See Annex
Republic of Korea	All other imports originating in country concerned	5,8	8999
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,8	89UE
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7	89UF
Taiwan	All other imports originating in country concerned	21,7	8999

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 August 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ANNEX

Other cooperating exporting producers not sampled:

Country	Name	TARIC additional code
Korea	KUMHO PETROCHEMICAL Co., Ltd.	89UG
Korea	INEOS Styrolution Korea Ltd.	89UH

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1739/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)