Definitive anti-dumping duties of between 29.1% and 42.3% are now in force on imports of adipic acid from China, following a fourteen-month investigation. The decision lands as the EU adipic acid sector shrinks from four producers to three, with BASF’s Ludwigshafen closure and Radici’s private equity acquisition reshaping the market.
Commission Implementing Regulation 2026/913, published on 5 May 2026, imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of adipic acid, a key chemical intermediate used in the production of nylon, polyurethanes, polyester powder coating resins, lubricants, and food additives, originating in China (CN code 2917 12 00, TARIC code 2917 12 00 10). The investigation was initiated on 14 March 2025 following a complaint by the two principal EU producers, Lanxess Deutschland GmbH and Radici Chimica S.p.A., covering the investigation period of 1 January to 31 December 2024.
The definitive duty rates are set at the lower of the dumping margin and the injury elimination level, in line with the lesser duty rule under Article 7(2) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. For Chongqing Huafon Chemical Co., the dumping margin was 29.1% against an injury elimination margin of 47.1%, making the duty 29.1%. For Tangshan Zhonghao Chemical Co., the dumping margin of 42.3%, slightly below the 48.7% injury elimination margin, determines the duty. Three other cooperating but non-sampled producers, China Pingmei Shenma, Hengli Petrochemical, and Shandong Hualu-Hengsheng, receive a blended rate of 31.5%. All other Chinese imports face the highest rate of 42.3%. The Commission confirmed that retroactive collection of duties does not apply, as import volumes during the registration period (April to October 2025) fell from 9,621 to 7,774 tonnes per month compared to the same period in 2024, meaning the legal threshold of a further substantial rise in imports was not met.
The investigation’s most technically contested issues concerned the construction of the normal value under Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the methodology used where domestic Chinese prices are considered distorted. Brazil was selected as the representative country. Disputes arose over benchmarks for steam (Zhonghao uses coal rather than natural gas, ultimately accepted by the Commission), water (Huafon argued Brazilian SABESP prices were inflated by drought and privatisation, rejected for lack of evidence), and labour (Huafon challenged the IBGE-based methodology, rejected as consistent with established practice). The Commission also corrected two clerical errors in the gas benchmark calculation, resulting in a benchmark of 4.25 CNY per m³.
The regulation also addresses a request by Allnex Italy for an end-use exemption covering adipic acid used in polyester powder coating resins, an application relevant to downstream SMEs in the surface finishing sector. Allnex argued that no equivalent product exists and that cumulative anti-dumping measures across multiple chemical inputs would erode profitability. The Commission rejected the request on two grounds, as there is no evidence that Allnex requires a China-specific grade of adipic acid and cannot source from EU producers or third countries; and the projected impact of the duties on Allnex’s profitability is limited. The recitals note that users surveyed, representing approximately 91% of import volumes, remain profitable even at the residual duty rate, while the non-imposition of duties would in all likelihood eliminate the EU industry entirely. A market concentration concern raised by COIM S.p.A., that the sector has narrowed from four producers to three following BASF’s 2025 Ludwigshafen closure and Radici’s acquisition by Lone Star private equity, was acknowledged but not accepted as grounds to modify the duties, with the Commission characterising the consolidation as an indicator of resilience under dumping pressure rather than a competition concern.
