China MOFCOM final anti-dumping duties on copolyacetal (POM copolymer) from US, EU, Taiwan and Japan (up to 74.9%)

Mechanism

MOFCOM launched the investigation 19 May 2024 (Announcement No. 18 of 2024) on a petition from the domestic copolyacetal industry, alleging dumped imports from the US, EU, Taiwan and Japan were causing material injury. The final ruling (Announcement No. 25 of 2025, 18 May 2025) found dumping and injury with a causal link and imposed a five-year duty schedule from 19 May 2025 under Article 38 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations, with country/company-specific rates ranging from 3.8% (named Taiwan producers) to 74.9% (US companies) — one of the highest AD rates in the register for an industrial-input product. Copolyacetal (POM copolymer) is a widely-used engineering thermoplastic in automotive fuel-system and precision components, consumer electronics housings and industrial gears/bearings, so the duty raises input costs for downstream manufacturers sourcing from the named origins rather than domestic or third-country suppliers.

The August 2026 amendment is purely administrative: Polyplastics Co., Ltd. (Japan) underwent an absorption-type corporate split into Daicel Corporation, and its Taiwan subsidiary was renamed Daicel HPP Taiwan Co., Ltd. MOFCOM's Announcement No. 36 of 2026 confirms the successor entities inherit the original companies' individual duty rates rather than defaulting to the higher "all other companies" rate, preserving continuity of the 2025 duty schedule through the corporate restructuring.

Downstream implications

• Raises landed cost of US-origin copolyacetal by 74.9% and EU-origin by

42.0% for Chinese buyers through 2030, pushing automotive/electronics component makers sourcing POM copolymer toward domestic Chinese producers or non-named-origin suppliers.

• Japan and Taiwan producers retain comparatively lower rates (as low as

3.8%-35.5%), preserving some competitive position for named companies versus US and EU exporters.

• The corporate-succession ruling signals MOFCOM actively maintains

company-specific AD rate assignments through M&A activity rather than letting restructured entities default to residual "all other companies" rates — relevant precedent for any named exporter undergoing corporate reorganization while subject to a Chinese AD order.

Open questions

• Will the duty be subject to a sunset review before its scheduled 2030

expiry, and will named US/EU companies seek individual rate reviews given the gap between named-company and residual rates?