Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/316 of 12 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed 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 9(4) thereof,

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 accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, on 18 July 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. Chimei Corporation pointed at apparent discrepancies between cost figures amongst datasets disclosed, an issue that became moot with the recalculation of the party’s dumping margin at final disclosure stage. LG Chem, Ltd and Lotte Chemical Corporation provided comments on the methodology used to calculate the dumping margin, which were reiterated on the provisional disclosure. Since these comments did not directly concern the accuracy of the calculation, they were not addressed at the provisional stage and are further detailed in the following recitals 44 to 108.

(5) On 18 August 2025, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins (‘ABS’) originating in Korea and Taiwan by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1739 (4) (‘the provisional Regulation’).

(7) The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with LG Chem, Lotte, Chimei Corporation, Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation, Ineos, Trinseo, and the Coalition. No party requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer.

(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 ABS originating in Korea and Taiwan (‘final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.

(10) All four sampled exporting producers, the Union industry, two cooperating unrelated importers (Biesterfeld and Intepolimeri), one user (LEGO), and the Coalition for an Open and Competitive EU ABS Market made submissions on the final disclosure. Their comments and claims are addressed in the relevant parts of this Regulation.

(11) Parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard. Hearings took place with LG Chem, Lotte, the Union industry, LEGO, and the Coalition.

(12) As detailed in the relevant parts of this Regulation, the Commission accepted some comments and claims submitted by the parties after disclosure. Consequently, the Commission informed all interested parties of the revisions to the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose definitive anti-dumping duties (‘additional final disclosure’). All parties were granted a period to comment on the additional final disclosure.

(13) LG Chem, Lotte, the Union industry, Biesterfeld and Interpolimeri submitted comments on the additional final disclosure. Those comments and claims are addressed in the relevant parts of this Regulation.

(14) In the absence of comments concerning the initiation, recitals 6 to 16 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(15) In the absence of comments concerning sampling, recitals 17 to 27 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(16) As mentioned in recital 28 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission received a request from one non-sampled exporting producer in Korea, INEOS Styrolution Korea Ltd., for individual examination under Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, due to the complexity of the case and the workload associated with the investigation, the Commission considered that any individual examinations would be unduly burdensome and would jeopardise the timely completion of the investigation within the meaning of Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. The request for individual examination submitted by INEOS Styrolution Korea Ltd. was therefore rejected.

(17) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the GOK reiterated their comments on the exceptional nature of years 2020 and 2021 with regard to the injury findings. LEGO argued that would the Commission follow its practice to limit the period considered to the investigation period and three preceding years, there would be no causal link between the imports from Taiwan and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

(18) Since these comments concerned mainly the provisional findings of injury and causation, they were addressed in sections 4 (recitals 147 and 148) and 5 (recitals 152 to 155) of this Regulation respectively.

(19) In the absence of other comments concerning the investigation period and period considered, recitals 6 to 16 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

(20) In its comments on final disclosure, LG Chem supported by the GOK recalled that in the provisional Regulation, the Commission confirmed that dry powder, a semifinished product containing all three main monomers however with a high butadiene content, was not included in the scope of this investigation. The company insisted that without reflecting it in the definition of the product concerned, the measures might be inadvertently applied also on imports of dry powder.

(21) The Commission is of that opinion that dry powder should not be classified under CN code 3903 30 00 and thus the risk perceived by the company should not materialise.

(22) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte supported by the GOK claimed that the Commission erroneously included in the determination of dumping product types with an ABS content of more than 50 % although the indicated CN code covered only products with an ABS content of more than 95 %. Lotte submitted a customs classification decision issued by the Korean customs authorities in 2017 with regard to a product containing [50-70] % of ABS to demonstrate that product types containing more than 50 % but less than 95 % of ABS should be classified under HS code 3903 90 (Others).

(23) The Commission recalled that the scope of this investigation is determined by the definition of the product under investigation. The product definition in section 2 of the Notice of Initiation covered ‘pure ABS’ as well as products with an ABS content of more than 50 %. Those products were correctly reported by exporting producers and the Union industry and investigated by the Commission.

(24) The Commission further noted that Lotte and the GOK’s comment that the CN code mentioned in the Notice of Initiation and provisional Regulation covers only products with ABS content of more than 95 % is not correct. There are no technical or legal reasons to exclude blends containing more than 50 % of ABS and less than 95 % of ABS from that CN code. Such products cannot be classified by application of Note 1 to Chapter 39 of the Combined Nomenclature (5) only, since they are not isolated products, but they are mixed (blended) with another polymer. Consequently, in order to classify ABS blended with another polymer, Note 4 to Chapter 39 must be also applied, considering which polymer predominates by weight in the mixture. Consequently, products with an ABS content of more than 50 %, should be classified under CN code 3903 30 00 , as the ABS predominates in the mixture. A classification under CN code 3903 90 00 is excluded because this subheading covers blends of ABS with certain other polymers of the styrenic family, if these other polymers are predominant in the blend.

(25) In its comments on final disclosure, Lotte supported by the GOK insisted that products containing more than 50 % but less than 95 % of ABS should be classified under HS code 3903 90 , not under HS code 3903 30 . The company argued that while relying on Note 4 to Chapter 39, the Commission omitted Notes to the subheading of Chapter 39. To support its views that products containing more than 50 % but less than 95 % of ABS should be classified under HS code 3903 90 , the company submitted an internal classification decision, classification decisions by the Korean and the US customs authorities, and classification documents issued by the World Customs Organisation (General rules for the interpretation of the Harmonised System, Explanatory note to Chapter 39).

(26) The Commission noted that to classify mixtures of ABS with other polymer correctly, it is necessary not to confuse (a) the chain structure of the ABS copolymer considered in isolation, which in case of a mixture does not constitute the entire product, and (b) the mixture of ABS and other polymer, e.g. polycarbonate (‘PC’), which constitutes the entire product. The hypothetical mixture of ABS and PC (ABS/PC) cannot be classified in isolation using Note 1 to Chapter 39, since ABS is not an isolated product, but it is mixed with another polymer. Using the above example, the product to be classified is thus the ABS/PC blend.

(27) To classify the ABS/PC blend, Note 4 to Chapter 39 must be applied by considering which polymer predominates by weight in the mixture.

(28) This Note reads: ‘The expression “copolymers” covers all polymers in which no single monomer unit contributes 95 % or more by weight to the total polymer content. For the purposes of this Chapter, except where the context otherwise requires, copolymers (including co-polycondensates, co-polyaddition products, block copolymers and graft copolymers) and polymer blends are to be classified in the heading covering polymers of that comonomer unit which predominates by weight over every other single comonomer unit. For the purposes of this Note, constituent comonomer units of polymers falling in the same heading shall be taken together. If no single comonomer unit predominates, copolymers or polymer blends, as the case may be, are to be classified in the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration’ (emphasis added).

(29) Since ABS predominates in the mixture used in the example (ABS/PC), the mixture is to be classified under HS code 3903 30 .

(30) In this respect, it also must be noted that Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 39 clearly states that HS code 3903 90 should be used ‘[ch]emically modified polymers are to be classified in the subheading named “Other”, provided that the chemically modified polymers are not more specifically covered by another subheading’ (emphasis added). In the context of a mixture of ABS with another polymer, the appropriate tariff classification cannot be established by taking into consideration only the rule established in Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 39 while ignoring Note 4 to Chapter 39. Since a mixture with predominant ABS falls under HS code 3903 30 based on Note 4 to Chapter 39, the rule established in Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 39 becomes moot in the context of a mixture of ABS with another polymer.

(31) Consequently, the Commission rejected the claims by Lotte and the GOK detailed in recital 25.

(32) Following provisional disclosure, Chimei and LEGO reiterated their request concerning an exclusion of mass-balanced ABS (6). Chimei focused its claims on ABS produced from bio feedstock. It submitted that mass-balanced ABS is a unique sustainable product not substitutable by general ABS, that it has a significantly reduced carbon footprint compared to general ABS which is derived from fossil fuels, that it is certified through the ISCC PLUS platform (7) and that its supply is limited. LEGO limited its exclusion request to ABS with a mass-balanced (sustainable) content of more than 50 % because only a few users commit to sustainability purchase making it a separate market segment, not competing with general (fossil) ABS due to its much higher price and distinct sustainability benefits. Alternatively, LEGO reiterated that if mass-balanced ABS was not excluded from the product scope the Commission should collect duties only on a value excluding the so-called green premium (a price supplement reflecting the use of sustainable feedstocks) or impose specific duties. Finally, LEGO requested the Commission to disclose how the mass-balanced content was taken into account for the purpose of comparison of normal value with the export price and the injury margin calculations.

(33) With regard to the availability of mass-balanced ABS on the Union market, the Commission found that it is also produced in the Union, mainly from feedstock obtained through chemical or mechanical recycling of circular product. The Commission further determined that the offer of mass-balanced ABS by the Union producers is significant, i.e. the imposition of measures on mass-balanced ABS will not result in shortage of supply. In fact, the Union industry supplies LEGO with non-negligible quantities of mass-balanced ABS.

(34) With regard to the request to limit the anti-dumping duty only to a value excluding the green premium, the Commission noted that LEGO does not publish the prices and price formulas agreed with its suppliers. The value of the green premium cannot be determined either from publicly available source or from the documents that are used in the customs clearance process. Therefore, excluding the green premium from the value on which the anti-dumping duties are levied is not possible. In addition, as mentioned in recital 234 of the provisional Regulation, ABS represents less than 4 % of LEGO’s total cost when manufacturing the final product and the company has continuously achieved profits of more than 20 %. Therefore, the Commission found no compelling reasons linked to Union interest to deviate from the practice of imposing anti-dumping measures in the form of an ad valorem duty.

(35) Finaly, the effect of recycled or bio feedstocks on the cost or price of ABS was reflected in the definition of product types used for the comparison of normal value and export price, as well as for the determination of undercutting and underselling. Although, the level of mass-balanced content was not reflected in the definition of those product types, it was considered for the purpose of fair comparison in case of ABS grades with higher-than-average mass-balanced content in the form of a price adjustment.

(36) Consequently, the exclusions requests and claims concerning mass-balanced ABS were rejected.

(37) Following final disclosure, LEGO reiterated that the anti-dumping duty should not be applied on the mass-balanced content of imported ABS. The company once again offered a methodology for how the customs authorities could determine the value of the anti-dumping duty if the mass-balanced content is excluded. To make the exclusion of the mass-balanced content practicable, the company offered in the future, to request from its supplier(s) invoicing which differentiates between the green premium and the rest of the import price.

(38) Considering that mass-balanced ABS clearly falls within the definition of the product concerned in recital 39 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission noted that the exclusion of the mass-balanced content from the application of the anti-dumping duty must be first and foremost justified by Union interest considerations. The practicability would only be considered if reasons for an exclusion based on Union interest would exist. In this regard, the Commission recalled its findings in recitals 234 and 235 of the provisional Regulation. In fact, an anti-dumping duty of 10 % on LEGO’s imports of ABS from Korea and Taiwan in the investigation period would only lead to a reduction of the company’s profit that would only be visible behind the decimal comma.

(39) Consequently, the Commission confirmed the rejection of LEGO’s request for the anti-dumping duty to be applied only to the non-sustainable content of ABS.

(40) Following provisional disclosure, Chimei reiterated its request concerning an exclusion of flame retardant ABS. It claimed that flame retardant ABS had different basic characteristics from general purpose ABS. Lotte also submitted in its comments on provisional disclosure that the imposition of the measures on flame retardant ABS would have negative effect on the supply in the Union as flame retardant ABS was produced in the Union only in small quantities. Lotte however did not explicitly request an exclusion of flame retardant ABS from the product scope.

(41) Chimei did not provide any relevant justification supporting its claims. Naturally, when compared to general purpose ABS, flame retardant ABS has different characteristics. Flame retardant ABS is however produced also in the Union. The basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics of flame retardant ABS exported to the Union by Chimei and other exporting producers are comparable to flame retardant ABS produced and sold by the Union industry.

(42) Should the demand for flame retardant ABS continue growing in the Union, the Union producers may increase their production of such grade. In addition, the level of the present duties does not prevent the users of flame retardant ABS to continue procuring it from the countries concerned.

(43) Consequently, the Commission confirmed its rejection of this exclusion request.

(45) The Union industry requested a more detailed disclosure of the methodology used for the calculation of the normal value in order to further support their claims.

(46) The Commission considered that no assumptions can be made from the significant difference between the injury margins and the dumping margins of the sampled Korean producers as, in accordance with the basic Regulation, they are established based on different methodologies.

(47) Moreover, the Commission recalled that for both sampled exporting producers, its findings were based on data which was verified on-spot.