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

• (122) First, the Commission disagreed that the party proved that the adjustment was necessary. In this respect, the Commission recalls that, in sections D.1 (domestic sales) and E.1 (export sales to the Union) of its questionnaire reply, Chimei Corporation stated not to issue price lists to its customers and that the selling price was determined through negotiations with the customer on a case-by-case basis. In addition, no contracts or other hard evidence were made available to the Commission that could support the need for an adjustment to neutralise a factor that affected prices and price comparability. Second, should an adjustment have been necessary, quad non, the Commission put into question the reliability of the information that could serve to quantify an adjustment, if any. The reliability of the information that could serve to quantify an adjustment was not at stake in Sacks and bags from India, PSF from China and Saudi Arabia, FeSi or Sweetcorn from Thailand. The four examples given by Chimei Corporation, namely Sweetcorn from Thailand (where, contrary to what the party stated, the relevant level of trade was present in the exporters’ domestic market) can thus not back the party’s position. In the case of Chimei Corporation, the verification of the categorisation of the domestic customers as users or distributors for sampled invoices showed inaccuracies. This and other failures as to the customer categorization were disclosed to the party in confidence at provisional stage. The said inaccuracies and failures put into question Chimei Corporation’s categorisation of its numerous customers. In addition, the difference in prices at PCN level was not ‘consistent’ (as required in Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the basic Regulation) to the extent that the prices to distributors were not always lower than those to users. In sum, Chimei Corporation failed to prove whether, as claimed, sales to distributors were at lower prices and that the level of the sale prices to distributors was linked to a different level of trade. The Commission concluded rather that the selling price was determined through negotiations with the customer on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Commission rejected Chimei Corporation’s claim.

• (123) In its comments on the provisional disclosure, Chimei Corporation reiterated its claim that SG & A costs and profit should be removed from the calculation of the normal value for the domestic sales made by its related party in Taiwan. Chimei Corporation stated that the reasons given at provisional stage to reject its claim were irrelevant. Chimei Corporation alleged that the comparison made between the export price and the normal value was not at the same level of trade because sales via its related party included a double SG & A and profit. Chimei Corporation asked the Commission to transpose to its domestic related entity the Commission’s consistent approach of making adjustments when related traders are involved in exports to the Union.

• (124) Following final disclosure, Chimei Corporation insisted that, contrary to the requirement of the chapeau of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, the export price and normal value were not at the same level of trade, as the normal value included two layers of SG & A costs and profit (both from Chimei Corporation and its related party), whereas the export price only contained one layer of SG & A expenses and profit (those of Chimei alone). The party considered that the Commission had not explained why its related party cannot be regarded as a related trader under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation, nor engaged with the factual evidence and remuneration considerations provided by Chimei in the provisional disclosure comments. In its view, the Commission should have explained why the existence of further processing or PCN changes (to the extent they occur) would prevent it from isolating and deducting the part of the margin corresponding to distribution and selling functions, while leaving any processing-related element appropriately reflected in the PCN and cost structure [^ntr20-L_202600316EN.000101-E0020]. The party called for the Commission to ‘set out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision’ [^ntr21-L_202600316EN.000101-E0021] and requested additional explanations why certain arguments had not been accepted with a view to properly exercise its rights of defence.

• (125) Further to the arguments disclosed to Chimei Corporation in confidence at provisional stage, the Commission noted that removing SG & A and profit for Chimei Corporation’s related party would not be appropriate in the present case bearing in mind that the nature of the activities performed by the related party in question. Chimei Corporation’s request would entail that the normal value would only have the SG & A and profit of Chimei Corporation for ABS further processed by Chimei Corporation’s related party and a PCN change. Both the Commission’s own practice and the Courts have confirmed that the realisation of a profit on resale by a related trader meets the requirement of a ‘mark-up’ under Article 2(10)(i), however, the merits of each case are of utmost importance. To justify an adjustment for commissions under Article 2(10)(i), the toller/trader in question must perform functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. According to the case-law, this must be established by the party claiming the adjustment, in this case Chimei Corporation. Chimei Corporation failed to establish this.

• (126) Moreover, in the present investigation, in line with Çolakoğlu [^ntr22-L_202600316EN.000101-E0022], the Commission considered the reality of the case (i.e. that Chimei’s Corporation related party resells in the domestic market only after processing Chimei’s Corporation products) and also the data available. In this regard, as any processing-related element should be appropriately reflected in the cost structure, the normal value included two layers of SG & A costs and profit (one from Chimei Corporation and another from its related party). Even if the processing activities of the related party varied depending on the product, they always occurred. Chimei Corporation’s call after final disclosure for isolating and deducting the part of the margin corresponding specifically to distribution and selling functions of its related party is contrary to the burden of proof set by the provisions of the chapeau of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation (according to which it would be up to the claimant to proof and isolate its claim). In addition, Chimei Corporation’s claim arrived too late in the proceeding. At no stage of the proceeding did the Chimei Corporation isolate a part of the related party’s margin corresponding specifically to distribution and selling functions (versus the related party’s margin corresponding to other (processing) activities) nor meaningfully responded to the Commission’s concerns for a quantification, even if the Commission shared in due time all the factual and legal material which formed the basis of its decisions. In this respect, on 18 August 2025, in its provisional disclosure, the Commission had warned the party about practical difficulties encountered for quantifying an adjustment, if any. In this respect, Chimei Corporation did not pursue the Commission’s attempts to analyse the specific relationship amongst the two parties, namely based on the link between the tables DMSAL (i.e. transaction-by-transaction sales of the producer to related and unrelated customers in the domestic market) and DMSALRL (i.e. transaction-by-transaction sales of Chimei Corporation’s related party in its domestic market) [^ntr23-L_202600316EN.000101-E0023]. Should there had been good traceability and should DMSALRL have been fully filled in following all the instructions when due, quad non, there would have been further details about the related toller’s specific activities transaction-by-transaction and the existence of patterns could have been explored. The Commission rejected Chimei Corporation’s claims.

• (127) Following provisional disclosure, Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation asked for a downwards adjustment of the normal value that would take into account the differences in the domestic and Union export market structures, and the differences in pricing based on the quantities sold, pursuant to Article 2(10)(c) of the basic Regulation and the Commission’s position in High Tenacity Yarns from Belarus, Korea and Taiwan [^ntr24-L_202600316EN.000101-E0024]. The party based its request on an empirical analysis according to which for a significant share of domestic sales the monthly average unit price of large orders within a given PCN was lower than the monthly average unit price of small orders within that same PCN. Following final disclosure, the party reiterated its request to adjust the normal value to take into account the differences in the domestic and EU export market structures, and the differences in pricing based on the quantities sold, pursuant to Article 2(10)(c) of the basic Regulation. No new elements were brought forward.

• (128) During the investigation, the Commission endeavoured to collect hard evidence about how Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation set sales prices. In this respect, in sections D.1 (domestic sales) and E.1 (export sales to the Union) of its questionnaire reply, Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation stated not to issue price lists to its customers. No contracts or other hard evidence was made available to the Commission in the verification visit that could support the statement that orders above a certain threshold benefited from lower prices or that quantity discounts were given for differences in quantities directly linked to the sales under consideration. The Commission found Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation’s claim unfounded and thus rejected it.

3.2.3.2.   Adjustments made to the export price

• (129) Following provisional disclosure, Chimei Corporation considered that the Commission had not met the burden of proof requirements for the adjustments it made to the export price of the company as regards credit costs and year-end rebates.

• (130) The Commission revised its provisional position as regards year-end rebates and considered at final stage that the nature of the year-end rebates reported by Chimei Corporation for export sales rendered them ineligible for an allowance.

• (131) As regards credit costs, the Commission confirmed its provisional findings. Firstly, the Commission considered that the fact that Chimei Corporation reported credit costs for export sales entailed that the party considered them to be a factor taken into account in the determination of the prices charged. Secondly, payment settlement strategies in the domestic and export markets differed significantly. This supported a downward adjustment for credit costs on the export price (only) because the settlements issues on which grounds a credit cost adjustment was rejected for the normal value calculations were not observed for customers in the Union.

• (132) In the absence of other comments about a fair comparison, the findings in recitals 100 to 105 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

3.2.4.   Dumping margins

• (133) Following the changes described in recitals 116 and 130, the Commission revised the dumping margin for Chimei Corporation from 10,8 % to 10,9 %.

• (134) The definitive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) Union frontier price, duty unpaid, are as follows:

Company	Definitive dumping margin (%)
Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,9
Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7
All other imports originating in Taiwan	21,7

4. INJURY

4.1.   Definition of the Union industry

• (135) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the GOK reiterated that compounders should be considered part of the Union industry and included in the injury analysis. In this respect, the parties referred to the findings of WTO Panels and the Appellate Body in several dispute settlement cases, which held that the producers are those who make the product and those who produce inputs to make that product cannot be considered producers. In this respect, the parties recalled that compounders are involved in the production of ABS in two ways:

• (a) They purchase the finished product and blend it with other (co)polymers, pigments or other additives that enhance the properties of the product.

• (b) They purchase dry powder [^ntr25-L_202600316EN.000101-E0025], a semi-finished product that contains all three monomers but has a high content of butadiene and is thus not suitable for industrial uses. Such semi-finished product is then compounded with styrene-acrylonitrile (‘SAN’) to arrive at the finished product, ABS with the appropriate content of the three monomers.

• (136) At the provisional stage, the Commission indeed only analysed compounding activities described in recital 135, point (a). The Commission found that such companies should not be considered part of the Union industry as they did not perform the most important production step (the completion of the polymerisation process) and their added value was relatively small (7–10 %) (see recitals 114 to 116 of the provisional Regulation).

• (137) In addition to that, the Commission also examined the information available on the file concerning compounders described in recital 135, point (b). First, it must be noted that companies purchasing dry powder can use it to make products which are not subject to this investigation (e.g. PC/ABS, a blend containing more than 50 % of polycarbonate, MABS, a blend containing more than 50 % of methyl methacrylate). Therefore, companies processing dry powder do not necessarily make product that is covered by this investigation.

• (138) Sales of the Union industry and imports from Korea and Taiwan represent 94 % of the Union’s ABS consumption. Out of the four sampled exporting producers, only one sold a small volume of dry powder (less than 20 tonnes) to distributors in the Union in the investigation period. The Union industry sold [3 800–4 100] tonnes of dry powder on the Union market. [83–86] % of that quantity was sold to a single customer that processed the semi-finished product into finished products. According to publicly available information, that customer offered [42–46] grades of PC/ABS, a product that is not in the scope of this investigation, and only [1–3] grades of ABS/PC, a product that is in the scope of this investigation. Therefore, we concluded that it was highly unlikely that that customer produced significant quantities of such grades that could fall under the scope of this investigation.

• (139) Even if the total known sales of dry powder on the Union market were used to produce the product under investigation, the total additional volume would amount to only 3 % of the ABS production in the Union in the investigation period as described in recital 141 of the provisional Regulation.

• (140) Finally, as addressed in recital 115 of the provisional Regulation, potential compounders were contacted before initiation with regard to the standing exercise and also at initiation. Throughout the whole investigation, only one company, Romira GmbH, claiming to be a compounder registered as an interested party. The company never made any representations, neither has it provided any data for the investigation.

• (141) Consequently, the Commission concluded that even if there were compounders on the Union market that use dry powder to produce additional volumes of ABS, their share on total production and sales was not of such magnitude that it could have change the Commission’s findings of injury, causation and Union interest. Therefore, the Commission’s decision not to consider them part of the Union industry did not distort the injury picture.

• (142) Therefore, the claim made by Lotte and the GOK concerning the composition of the Union industry was rejected.

4.2.   Union consumption

• (143) In the absence of comments concerning the Union consumption, recitals 117 to 119 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.3.   Imports from the countries concerned

4.3.1.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned

• (144) In the absence of comments concerning the cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned, recitals 120 to 123 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.3.2.   Prices of the imports from the countries concerned and price undercutting

• (145) Following the changes to the Korean export prices as set out in recitals 58 to 75 and the revision of the profit of unrelated importer as set out in recitals 60 to 63, the weighted average undercutting margin on the Union market ranged from 26,2 % to 28,1 % for Korea in the investigation period.

• (146) In the absence of comments concerning prices of imports and undercutting, the rest of the elements discussed in recitals 128 to 135 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

4.4.   Economic situation of the Union industry

4.4.1.   General remarks

• (147) Lotte and the GOK argued that the Commission did not take into account the exceptional nature of years 2020 and 2021. The parties claimed that this led to a distorted injury picture and pointed to the evolution of imports, which dropped in 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic and started increasing to their pre-pandemic levels as of 2021.

• (148) Contrary to what the parties alleged, the Commission addressed the exceptional nature of years 2020 and 2021 in the provisional Regulation, namely in recitals 177 to 179 of the provisional Regulation. The parties did not bring forward any additional evidence that would invalidate the Commission’s findings from the provisional stage of the investigation. Consequently, the Commission rejected the claim.

4.4.2.   Macroeconomic indicators

• (149) In the absence of comments concerning macroeconomic indicators, recitals 141 to 155 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.4.3.   Microeconomic indicators

• (150) In the absence of comments concerning microeconomic indicators, recitals 156 to 170 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

4.5.   Conclusion on injury

• (151) On the basis of the above, the Commission confirmed its conclusion on the existence of material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation as described in recitals 171 to 173 of the provisional Regulation.

5. CAUSATION

5.1.   Effects of the dumped imports

• (152) Following provisional disclosure, LEGO argued that the measures should be terminated with regard to Taiwan. In this respect, the company claimed that the Commission should have used a period starting in 2021 and ending in the investigation period as the period considered according to the Commission’s established practice as 2020 was an exceptional year affected by the Covid 19 pandemic. The company pointed out that the exceptional nature of 2020, which rendered it not representative, was found in several other investigations. The party further submitted that if 2021 had been used as the beginning of the period considered, imports from Taiwan would have been found decreasing in absolute and relative terms and thus the investigation should be terminated with regard to Taiwan.

• (153) On a similar note, in their comments on provisional disclosure, the Taiwanese authorities argued that there was a lack of causal link between the imports from Taiwan and the material injury suffered by the Union industry. In particular, the authorities pointed out that the imports from Taiwan decreased after 2022, i.e. in 2023 and in the investigation period, and thus the economic situation of the Union industry should have improved.

• (154) In this respect the Commission noted that year 2020 indeed could not be considered representative due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Year 2021, however, was also exceptional considering the post-pandemic economic boom. The Commission conducted a balanced injury analysis where it took into account the fact that both years were rather extraordinary. This issue was addressed in recitals 177 to 179 of the provisional Regulation and in recitals 147 and 148 above.

• (155) In addition, as explained in recitals 120 to 123 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that the imports from Korea and Taiwan should be analysed cumulatively as all conditions for cumulation had been met. The fact that the imports from Korea grew over the whole period considered while the imports from Taiwan decreased in a part of the period considered (in 2023 and in the investigation period) cannot be considered a reason that would prevent the Commission from a cumulative analysis. Consequently, the claims of both parties were rejected.

5.2.   Effects of other factors

5.2.1.   Cost of energy and raw materials

• (156) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the GOK reiterated that the injury suffered by the Union industry was not caused by the imports from Korea but by increased cost of energy and raw materials. They demonstrated the increase in energy prices based on data from IEA, which showed that the electricity price in the Union had more than doubled between 2021 and 2023, while the electricity cost in Korea had increased only by approximately 50 %. With regard to raw materials, the parties referred to benchmarks for China and Europe based on market intelligence data by Platts.

• (157) Following provisional disclosure, LG Chem claimed that the ultimate reason for the increase in ABS imports originating in Korea was the high quality of their products coupled with more efficient production process and corresponding lower production cost. The company pointed out that the Commission failed to quantify the global increase in energy cost and freight cost during the period considered.

• (158) The Commission analysed the verified data of the sampled Union producers and the sampled exporting producers in the countries concerned. While the cost of raw materials per unit of finished product was indeed lower in Korea and Taiwan, the cost of energy per unit of finished product incurred by the Union industry were within the range of energy cost obtained from the sampled exporting producers. Cost of materials of the sampled exporting producers was by 5–15 % lower than the cost or raw materials incurred by the Union industry.

• (159) The above analysis confirmed the Commission’s conclusions set out in recital 198 of the provisional Regulation that higher cost of production contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry but did not attenuate the causal link between dumped imports and injury. In addition, the Commission recalled that in the absence of unfair competition, the Union industry would be able to recover at least part of its cost of production and thus achieve more reasonable profits. Therefore, the claim that the injury was caused solely by high energy and raw material cost in the Union was rejected.

5.2.2.   Lack of cost optimisation and investment

• (160) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the GOK reiterated their claims that the injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the lack of cost optimisation and investments into improving their operations in the Union. The parties referred to the fact that the Union industry increased its production capacity in 2021 and 2022 despite the reduction of the Union market. In addition, they pointed out that Ineos was investing in China while neglecting its operations in the Union.

• (161) First, the Commission noted that the parties did not bring forward any new arguments or evidence concerning the lack of cost optimisation.

• (162) Contrary to that, the Commission found that the Union industry has been consolidating its employment numbers by optimising management and administration functions and continues doing so even after the period considered. The reduction of production related staff was, however, limited by the numbers necessary to run the existing plants and production lines.

• (163) The issue of additional production capacity was already addressed in recitals 199 to 201 of the provisional Regulation. In addition to the explanations provided in the provisional Regulation, it must be noted that contrary to what the parties claimed, the Union market grew in those two years (2021 and 2022) when new production capacity was put into operation by the Union industry. It only declined in 2023 and in the investigation period even below the level of 2020, the beginning of the period considered.

• (164) With regard to Ineos’ investments in China, the mere fact that the global group invested in one region was not alone evidence of neglecting their operations in another region. The sampled Union producers appeared to have an internationalisation strategy different from the Korean exporting producers. While the Korean companies served the global market primarily from their production plants located in Korea, the groups to which the sampled Union producers belong established regional presence closer to their customers.

• (165) Consequently, the claim described in recital 160 was rejected.

5.2.3.   Imports from third countries

• (166) In the absence of comments concerning sampling, recitals 183 to 186 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.2.4.   Export performance of the Union industry

• (167) In the absence of comments concerning sampling, recitals 187 to 191 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.3.   Consumption

• (168) In the absence of comments concerning sampling, recitals 192 to 193 of the provisional Regulation were confirmed.

5.4.   Conclusion on causation

• (169) Considering the Commission’s conclusions on claims related to the cost of energy and raw materials, and to optimisation and investment, as well as the fact that no comments were received with regard to the effect of imports from third countries and the export performance of the Union industry, the Commission confirmed its findings concerning causation set out in recitals 210 and 211 of the provisional Regulation.

6. LEVEL OF MEASURES

6.1.   Injury margin

• (170) Following provisional disclosure, Taiwanese authorities argued that the inclusion of future compliance cost in the injury margin calculation could have resulted in double remedy. According to the Taiwanese authorities, the compliance cost was already included in the cost of production, the Union producers have received 100 % free ETS quota and will continue receiving them until 2034.

• (171) In this respect, the Commission noted that the purchase of ETS certificates by the Union industry was verified. In addition, there was no double remedy as only the additional cost linked to the purchase of ETS certificates, based either on the higher future price of those certificates or an increased need for additional ETS quota, which was not included in the Union industry’s cost of production incurred in the investigation period, was reflected in the injury margin calculation.

• (172) Consequently, the claim concerning potential double remedy due to the inclusion of future compliance cost in the injury margin calculation was rejected.

• (173) Following the revision of the Korean export prices as set out in recitals 58 to 75 and the profit of unrelated importer as set out in recitals 60 to 63, the underselling margins for Korea changed. The final underselling margins established for the countries concerned were as follows:

Country	Company	Dumping margin (%)	Underselling margin (%)
Korea	LG Chem	7,5	67,7
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,2	63,6
Korea	Other cooperating companies	6,8	65,8
Korea	All other companies	7,5	67,7
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,9	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

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

Country	Company	Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)
Korea	LG Chem	7,5
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,2
Korea	Other cooperating companies	6,8
Korea	All other companies	7,5
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,9
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7
Taiwan	All other companies	21,7

7. UNION INTEREST

7.1.   Interest of the Union industry

• (175) Following provisional disclosure, the Union industry reiterated that it suffered material injury. In particular, the companies mentioned the increase in imports from Korea after the initiation of the investigation, their customers reporting lower prices charged for ABS originating in Korea, decreasing ability to finance maintenance of their production equipment, continued reduction in employment, and an imminent risk of closure of at least one of the production plants located in the Union.

• (176) Following provisional disclosure, the association Plastics Recyclers Europe criticised the low level of the provisional duties. According to the association, in particular the duties provisionally imposed on imports originating in Korea were insufficient to restore fair competition in the Union market. The association submitted that in addition to further injury to producers of recycled or virgin ABS, the level of the duties jeopardised the achievement of the Union’s recycling and recovery targets under Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [^ntr26-L_202600316EN.000101-E0026].

• (177) The Commission took note of the above comments received from the Union industry that clearly show that the imposition of the measures was in the interest of the Union industry.

• (178) With regards to the recycling and recovery targets, the Commission recognised the importance of transition to a circular economy, the basic Regulation however does not provide for a possibility to impose anti-dumping measures at a level exceeding the level of the dumping margin.

• (179) Consequently, the Commission confirmed its findings concerning the interest of the Union industry as set out in recitals 224 and 225 of the provisional Regulation.

7.2.   Interest of unrelated importers and users

7.2.1.   High quality of products and services offered by the Korean producers

• (180) Following provisional disclosure, LG Chem claimed that there was no evidence that the Union industry was able to provide the full range of products LG Chem offered. In this respect, the party also pointed out that switching from one user to another could not be done in a short term due to approval procedures.

• (181) In the same spirit, following provisional disclosure, the Coalition claimed that LG Chem offered unique and irreplaceable products. In addition, the Coalition claimed that the Union industry was not able to offer competitive ABS alternatives, highlighting the fact that only one of the three complainants manufactured emulsion ABS, which was allegedly preferred on the market.

• (182) First, the quality of products supplied by the producers in the countries concerned is not disputed. It is not the aim of this investigation to prevent imports from those countries, but to correct the dumping behaviour to level the playing field.

• (183) Second, the quality of products offered by the Union industry could not be doubted either. The Union industry served approximately 63 % of the Union market, including a number of customers with very specific requirements for the ABS properties. Contrary to what LG Chem and the Coalition claimed there was no evidence that the Union industry was not able to meet the demand on the Union market, including specific ABS grades. The parties’ claims were mere assertions not supported by any evidence.

• (184) Third, the Union industry provided evidence that major OEMs that have very specific requirements for ABS properties and submit the ABS suppliers to approval procedures did not rely solely on one supplier, but cooperated with a number of certified ABS producers, including the Union producers and producers from the countries concerned, to ensure security of supply. Therefore, even if the anti-dumping duties limited the access of users to ABS from Korea and Taiwan, quod non, the users should not be affected as they already have preapproved suppliers other than the exporting producers from the countries concerned.

• (185) Finally, as already explained in the provisional Regulation, depending on the application and method used to produce downstream products, mass-produced ABS can be a suitable alternative for emulsion ABS. Contrary to what the Coalition asserted, two Union producers manufactured emulsion ABS. Although there was no evidence that the market in general prefers emulsion ABS, the potential of the two Union producers to meet the demand for emulsion ABS on the Union market was substantial considering their production capacity.

• (186) Consequently, the claims described in recitals 180 and 181 were rejected.

• (187) Following final disclosure, the Coalition, explicitly supported by Biesterfeld, Hromatka, and Interpolimeri during a hearing, reiterated their claims concerning the high quality and range of products offered by LG Chem as compared to a limited offer by the Union industry. The party provided an analysis of all product types of LG Chem and whether substitutes are produced by the Union industry. For a number of product types, the Coalition claimed there not be equivalent substitutes on the Union market.

• (188) Furthermore, the Coalition argued that while LG Chem offered [75–100] product types, the Union industry’s scope was limited to [10–25] product types.

• (189) Finally, the Coalition referred to the homologation process that the ABS suppliers have to undergo before becoming a qualified supplier in certain industries. The party claimed that the homologation process takes up to two years for medical devices and up to 18 months in the automotive industry. LG Chem is allegedly in some cases the only qualified supplier. Therefore, allowing for access to Korean, specifically LG Chem’s, ABS is crucial for seamless functioning of the users’ industries.

• (190) First, the Commission noted that the analysis of availability of products by the Union industry sufficiently replacing LG Chem’s ABS might be incomplete and flawed. For example, the Coalition claimed that the Union industry does not produce high impact ABS, which is incorrect. The Union producers offer a number of product types, some with a very high impact resistance. In addition, the product type in question is advertised by LG Chem itself as general purpose ABS, i.e. not a specialty product type.

• (191) The allegedly small number of product types offered by the Union industry is equally incorrect. Only the sampled Union producers produced between 60 and 300 various ABS types.

• (192) In any case, should any product type imported from Korea become scarce after the imposition of the measures, the Union industry can easily adapt its portfolio by compounding ABS with additives necessary to achieve the desired properties.

• (193) With regard to the homologation process, the Commission recalled that (1) most OEMs worked with several qualified suppliers (see recital 184) and (2) it was not the purpose of this investigation to completely prevent imports from Korea and Taiwan, but rather to level the playing field on the Union market.

• (194) Consequently, the Commission rejected the claims detailed in recitals 187 to 189.

7.2.2.   Stability of supply

• (195) Following provisional disclosure, the Coalition reiterated the force majeure events declared by the Union producers in 2021. In its comment on provisional disclosure, LG Chem pointed out its ability to ensure stability of supply as proven during the Covid 19 pandemic or the Red Sea crisis.

• (196) The Commission noted that the parties did not bring forward any new arguments or evidence. The Commission addressed the force majeure events of 2021 in recitals 202 to 205 of the provisional Regulation. Those events were limited in time (2–5 months), did not stop the producer’s supply completely and other Union producers reported that they were able to increase their sales in the Union in that period, i.e. to replace the shortage of supply by the Union producers experiencing the force majeure events. In addition, the Commission found that force majeure events are not an exceptional occurrence in chemical complexes. LG Chem and Lotte experienced such events themselves affecting either the production of ABS [^ntr27-L_202600316EN.000101-E0027] (power outages in ABS production facilities) or other parts of the chemical production facilities [^ntr28-L_202600316EN.000101-E0028].

• (197) Consequently, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recital 205 of the provisional Regulation.

• (198) Following final disclosure, the Coalition, explicitly supported by Interpolimeri during a hearing, reiterated its concerns regarding the ability of the Union industry to provide a stable supply of ABS on the Union market. According to the party, various distributors reported that they were not able to secure a timely delivery from their usual Union suppliers. In addition, the Union industry allegedly operated at only 50 % of their production capacity at the moment.

• (199) Although there is no evidence supporting the above claims, if true, those reports only confirm the injury suffered by the Union industry due to dumped imports from Korea and Taiwan. Once the level playing field is restored on the Union market, the Union industry should be able to ramp up their production. Consequently, the claim by the Coalition was rejected.

7.2.3.   Ability of importers and users to compete on the Union market and globally

• (200) Following provisional disclosure, the Coalition claimed that even a low anti-dumping duty, such as the provisional duty of 3,7 % imposed on imports from LG Chem, would reduce the ability of its members to compete globally and in the Union.

• (201) In this respect, the Commission reiterated its findings at the provisional stage based on company specific data submitted by several importers and users. As mentioned in section 7.2 of the provisional Regulation, the importer’s share of ABS trading on their total business was less than 10 %. They also achieved healthy profits of up to 10 % on their ABS trading activities. With regard to users, as set out in section 7.3 of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that ABS represented only a minor share (less than 4 %) on their total cost of production, and they also enjoyed healthy profits. Contrary to the above-mentioned finding based on company specific data, the arguments brought forward by the Coalition were mere allegations not supported by any evidence.

• (202) Although the level of the duties increased after the provisional disclosure, in particular with regard to imports of ABS originating in Korea the Commission found that the magnitude of the increase was not able to change its conclusions concerning the interest of importers and users since the contribution of ABS, either in the form of its share on their total trading business or on their total cost of production, to their overall business results remains minor.

• (203) Therefore, Commission rejected the claim.

• (204) Following final disclosure, the Coalition reiterated that if the anti-dumping duties are imposed, it will put at risk the ability of various industries to compete locally and globally. The party argued that ABS represented 10–25 % material input cost for consumer electronics, 20–35 % for appliances, and 15–25 % for automotive components.

• (205) In this regard, the Commission recalled the findings of the investigation with regard to the two cooperating users. ABS may represent high share on material cost. The investigation however found that it contributed with a minor share to total cost of the cooperating user, one of the being a producer of automotive components. Therefore, the Coalition’s claim was rejected.

7.2.4.   Conclusions on the interest of unrelated importers and users

• (206) Based on the considerations detailed in recitals 180 to 203, the Commission confirmed its conclusions set out in recitals 232 and 235 of the provisional Regulation.

7.3.   Interest of consumers

• (207) In the absence of comments concerning the interest of consumers, recital 238 of the provisional Regulation was confirmed.

7.4.   Other factors

• (208) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the Coalition argued that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on ABS from Korea and Taiwan could inadvertently open the door for influx of low-price, allegedly dumped imports from China. Therefore, the Union should instead continue relying on imports from the countries concerned.

• (209) Following final disclosure, the Coalition reiterated that the measure would not help the Union industry to recover from the suffered injury. They will rather open the Union market for an influx of Chinese ABS. Chinese products allegedly cover mainly general purpose ABS, the producers provide limited technical support, raise quality concerns and display regulatory compliance issues.

• (210) First, the Commission noted that the imports from the sampled exporting producers in the countries concerned, on which the Union should allegedly continue relying, were found to be dumped. In this respect, it is not the aim of the measures to prevent imports from the countries concerned, but only to correct the injury caused to the Union industry by unfair competition from Korea and Taiwan.

• (211) Second, should the imports from China surge at low prices, whether as a result of the anti-dumping duties imposed on the countries concerned or simply because the Chinese ABS producers offer low-price alternatives, the Union industry will be able to request a new investigation provided that all conditions are met.

• (212) Consequently, the Commission rejected this claim as irrelevant for the analysis of the Union interest.

• (213) Following provisional disclosure, Lotte and the GOK disagreed with the Commission’s assertions that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties might motivate further expansion of Lotte’s subsidiaries in the Union. Lotte noted that its subsidiary in Hungary was not a fully independent plant but rather relied on imports of dry powder for compounding or imports of the finished product the properties of which are further enhanced through compounding with pigments and/or additives.

• (214) The Commission obviously cannot argue with Lotte about how the company should react to the imposition of the duties. However, the Commission cannot take the interest of specific companies individually in its analysis of Union interest but the interest of Union companies as a whole.

• (215) Consequently, the Commission rejected this claim as irrelevant for the analysis of the Union interest.

7.5.   Conclusion on Union interest

• (216) Based on the considerations detailed in sections 7.1 to 7.4, the Commission confirmed its findings set out in recital 244 of the provisional Regulation concluding that there were no compelling reasons showing that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of ABS originating in Korea and Taiwan.

8. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

8.1.   Definitive measures

• (217) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation, level of measures and Union interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports of the product concerned.

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

Country	Company	Dumping margin (%)	Injury margin (%)	Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)
Korea	LG Chem	7,5	67,7	7,5
Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,2	63,6	5,2
Korea	Other cooperating companies	6,8	65,8	6,8
Korea	All other imports originating in Korea	7,5	67,7	7,5
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,9	51,7	10,9
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7	67,8	21,7
Taiwan	All other imports originating in Taiwan	21,7	67,8	21,7

• (219) 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 in respect to these companies. These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of the product under investigation originating in the country concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘All other imports originating in Korea’ or ‘All other imports originating in Taiwan’ depending on the country of origin.

• (220) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission [^ntr29-L_202600316EN.000101-E0029]. The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (221) To minimise the risks of circumvention due to the difference in duty rates, special measures are needed to ensure the proper 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 Korea’ or ‘All other imports originating in Taiwan’ depending on the country of origin.

• (222) 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 should 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 rate of duty is justified, in compliance with customs law.

• (223) Should the exports by one of the companies benefiting from lower individual duty rates increase significantly in volume, in particular 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, an anti-circumvention investigation may be initiated, provided that the conditions for doing so are met. This investigation may, inter alia, examine the need for the removal of individual duty rate(s) and the consequent imposition of a country-wide duty.

• (224) To ensure a proper enforcement of the anti-dumping duties, the anti-dumping duty for ‘All other imports originating in Korea’ or ‘All other imports originating in Taiwan’ depending on the country of origin should apply not only to the non-cooperating exporting producers in this investigation, but also to the producers which did not have exports to the Union during the investigation period.

• (225) Exporting producers from Korea that did not export the product concerned to the Union during the investigation period should be able to request the Commission to be made subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. The Commission should grant such request provided that three conditions are met. The new exporting producer would have to demonstrate that: (i) it did not export the product concerned to the Union during the IP; (ii) it is not related to an exporting producer that did so; and (iii) has exported the product concerned thereafter or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to do so in substantial quantities. New exporters from Taiwan can request an individual dumping margin under the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.

8.2.   Definitive collection of the provisional duties

• (226) In view of the dumping margins found and given the level of the injury caused to the Union industry, the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected up to the levels established under the present Regulation.

8.3.   Retroactive collection

• (227) As mentioned in section 1.2, the Commission made imports of the product under investigation subject to registration.

• (228) During the definitive stage of the investigation, the data collected in the context of the registration was assessed. The Commission analysed whether the criteria under Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation were met for the retroactive collection of definitive duties.

• (229) The Commission’s analysis showed no further substantial rise in imports in addition to the level of imports which caused injury during the investigation period, as prescribed by Article 10(4)(d) of the basic Regulation. For this analysis, the Commission compared the monthly average import volumes of the product concerned during the period from the month following the initiation of this investigation until the last full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures with the monthly average import volumes during the investigation period. The Commission established an increase in imports from the countries concerned of 8 %. Also, when comparing the monthly average import volumes of the product concerned during the period from the month following the initiation of this investigation up to and including the month in which provisional measures were imposed with the monthly average import volumes during the investigation period, no further substantial increase could be observed. In this case, the Commission established an increase of imports from the countries concerned by 6 %.

Table

Evolution of imports after the initiation of the investigation

Period	Korea	Taiwan	Countries concerned	Countries concerned	Countries concerned
Period	Quantity (tonnes)	Quantity (tonnes)	Quantity (tonnes)	Monthly average quantity (tonnes)	Import evolution (Period/IP) (%)
January–July 2025	100 415	18 740	119 155	17 022	108
January–August 2025	113 357	20 333	133 690	16 711	106
Investigation period	153 608	36 072	189 680	15 807	—
Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.	Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.	Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.	Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.	Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.	Source: Eurostat (Comext database) and Surveillance 3.

• (230) In addition, since the initiation of the investigation, the prices of imports from the countries concerned slightly increased as they were by 2 % to 3 % above the average import prices in the investigation period.

• (231) In this respect, the Commission has however no information on the file that the increased import volumes at modestly higher import prices caused additional injury to the Union industry.

• (232) On that basis, the Commission concluded that the conditions as set out in Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation for the retroactive application of the definitive anti-dumping duty were not met.

• (233) Following final disclosure, the Union industry provided detailed data concerning exports of ABS from Korea and Taiwan and their imports in the Union. The industry pointed out that in the three months following the initiation of the investigation, the exports from Korea significantly increased, which was reflected in an increase in imports to the Union with an approximately 2-month delay. Afterwards the exports dropped again as the exporters would risk that the goods would be delivered in the Union after the imposition of the provisional duties.

• (234) The Commission noted that for the measures to apply retroactively, there must be evidence of significant stockpiling following initiation of the investigation. The temporary increase in exports from Korea was however not of such magnitude as to translate into significant increase in imports to the Union in the analysed period. Therefore, the Commission rejected the claim.

9. FINAL PROVISION

• (235) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council [^ntr30-L_202600316EN.000101-E0030], when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

• (236) The Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 did not deliver an opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Country of origin	Company	Definitive anti-dumping duty (%)	TARIC additional code
Republic of Korea	LG Chem	7,5	89UC
Republic of Korea	Lotte Chemical Corporation	5,2	89UD
Republic of Korea	Other cooperating companies listed in Annex	6,8	See Annex
Republic of Korea	All other imports originating in the Republic of Korea	7,5	8999
Taiwan	Chimei Corporation Grand Pacific Petrochemical Corporation	10,9	89UE
Taiwan	Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation	21,7	89UF
Taiwan	All other imports originating in Taiwan	21,7	8999

Article 2

The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1739 shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of the anti-dumping duty shall be released.

Article 3

Article 1 (2) may be amended to add new exporting producers from the Republic of Korea and make them subject to the appropriate weighted average anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating companies not included in the sample. A new exporting producer shall provide evidence that:

• (a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) during the period of investigation (1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024);

• (b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, and which could have cooperated in the original investigation; and

• (c) it has either actually exported the product concerned or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the period of investigation.

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, 12 February 2026.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

[^ntr1-L_202600316EN.000101-E0001]: OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj.

[^ntr2-L_202600316EN.000101-E0002]: OJ C, C/2024/7490, 19.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7490/oj.

[^ntr3-L_202600316EN.000101-E0003]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/412 of 3 March 2025 making imports of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Resins originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan subject to registration (OJ L, 2025/412, 4.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/412/oj).

[^ntr4-L_202600316EN.000101-E0004]: 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 (OJ L, 2025/1739, 18.8.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1739/oj).

[^ntr5-L_202600316EN.000101-E0005]: Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1987/2658/oj).

[^ntr6-L_202600316EN.000101-E0006]: Mass-balanced ABS is ABS produced either from (mechanically or chemically) recycled feedstocks or from bio feedstocks, e.g. used cooking oil (instead of fossil fuels). Commercially available ABS grade can have a varying mass-balanced content. All grades containing some mass-balance ABS are normally considered mass-balanced ABS.

[^ntr7-L_202600316EN.000101-E0007]: ‘ISCC PLUS’ is a voluntary certification scheme designed to validate sustainability characteristics of alternative feedstocks (https://www.iscc-system.org/certification/iscc-certification-schemes/iscc-plus/).

[^ntr8-L_202600316EN.000101-E0008]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia (OJ L 18, 19.1.2023, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2023/111/oj).

[^ntr9-L_202600316EN.000101-E0009]: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 315, 29.9.2020, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/1336/oj).

[^ntr10-L_202600316EN.000101-E0010]: See Case T-299/05, Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2009:72, paragraphs 207 to 213.

[^ntr11-L_202600316EN.000101-E0011]: Biesterfeld Chemia Specjalna sp. z o.o. (Poland) reached a net profit of 8,08 % in 2024, a year that largely covered the investigation period. Biesterfeld Spezialchemie d.o.o. (Croatia) generated a net profit of 10,35 % in the same period.

[^ntr12-L_202600316EN.000101-E0012]: BIESTERFELD SILCOM SLOVAKIA s.r.o. achieved a net profit before tax of 19,15 % in 2024. Profit and loss account for 2024. Available at https://www.registeruz.sk/cruz-public/domain/financialreport/show/9492214/552 (last viewed 19 December 2025). Biesterfeld Silcom s.r.o. (Czechia) generated a net profit before tax of 13,6 %. Annual report 2024, p. 11–12. Available at https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/vypis-sl-detail?dokument=85721392&subjektId=445690&spis=100807 (last viewed 19 December 2025).

[^ntr13-L_202600316EN.000101-E0013]: See section 2.2. on the ‘Green premium’.

[^ntr14-L_202600316EN.000101-E0014]: WT/DS480/R of 25 January 2018, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel fom Indonesia Report of the Panel, paragraph 7.116.

[^ntr15-L_202600316EN.000101-E0015]: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 2, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/1194/oj).

[^ntr16-L_202600316EN.000101-E0016]: Council Regulation (EC) No 1763/2002 of 30 September 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1950/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of sacks and bags made of polyethylene or polypropylene originating, inter alia, in India (OJ L 267, 4.10.2002, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/1763/oj), recital 37.

[^ntr17-L_202600316EN.000101-E0017]: Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/428/oj), recital 90.

[^ntr18-L_202600316EN.000101-E0018]: Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ L 55, 28.2.2008, p. 6, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/172/oj), recitals 48 and 50.

[^ntr19-L_202600316EN.000101-E0019]: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1888/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 68, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1888/oj), recital 36.

[^ntr20-L_202600316EN.000101-E0020]: Point 19 of t25.011742.

[^ntr21-L_202600316EN.000101-E0021]: In this respect, the party recalled Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council, Case T-401/06, Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010, ECLI:EU:T:2010:67, paragraph 181, and also Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010, Whirlpool Europe v Council, Case T-314/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:390, paragraph 114.

[^ntr22-L_202600316EN.000101-E0022]: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2024, Çolakoğlu Metalurji and Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret v Commission, Case T-630/21, ECLI:EU:T:2024:304, paragraph 94.

[^ntr23-L_202600316EN.000101-E0023]: In point 4 of t25.008442, Chimei Corporation wrote ‘ As concerns the Commission’s claimed impossibility to calculate the “mark-up” (and therefore the adjustment), our client notes that the Commission’s practice is to quantify the Article 2(10)(i) adjustment based on the SG & A expenses (as reported in the PL table) of the related trader and a notional profit (that is typically obtained from another, unrelated, profit). The fact that a specific resale cannot be linked to a specific purchase – or that a resale related to a purchase made before the IP – is therefore irrelevant for the calculation of the adjustment ’ (bold added).

[^ntr24-L_202600316EN.000101-E0024]: Commission Decision 2005/289/EC of 5 April 2005 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyester high tenacity filament yarn originating in Belarus, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (OJ L 88, 7.4.2005, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2005/289/oj), recital 47, which reads that ‘[…] quantity discounts can only be considered for an adjustment when they are actually given for differences in quantities directly linked to the sales under consideration […]’.

[^ntr25-L_202600316EN.000101-E0025]: Alternative names for this semi-finished product used by the parties interested in this investigation were rubber powder, grafted rubber concentrate, or gABS.

[^ntr26-L_202600316EN.000101-E0026]: Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (‘WEEE Directive’) (OJ L 197 24.7.2012, p. 38, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/19/oj).

[^ntr27-L_202600316EN.000101-E0027]: ABS, PP: Force majeure follows power outage in Daesan, South Korea / Key EU import volumes at risk?, available at https://www.plasteurope.com/news/PETROCHEMICAL_MARKETS_t257486/ (last viewed 22 October 2025). Power outage halts LG Chem, Lotte Chemical operations in Daesan, Korea, available at https://www.polymerupdate.com/News/Details/1370604 (last viewed 22 October 2025). Lotte Chemical declares force majeure after explosion [2020; affecting production of styrene monomer], available at https://www.businessinsurance.com/lotte-chemical-declares-force-majeure-after-explosion/ (last viewed 22 October 2025). Lotte shuts Daesan cracker after explosion [2020; affecting production of styrene monomer], available at https://www.argusmedia.com/ja/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2082292-lotte-shuts-daesan-cracker-after-explosion (last viewed 22 October 2025). Lotte Chemical announces FM on styrene supplies from Daesan unit, available at http://www.apic-online.org/top_story.asp?ID=11336 (last viewed 22 October 2025).