HOUSTON (ICIS)–Rates for shipping containers from east Asia and China to the US continued to slide this week as demand has eased and capacity has lengthened. Global average rates fell by almost 6% and are just below $3,000/FEU (40-foot equivalent unit) and around four-month lows, according to supply chain advisors Drewry and as shown in the following chart. Drewry’s rates from Shanghai to Los Angeles dropped by 15% week on week, while rates from Shanghai to New York fell by 11%, as shown in the following chart. “This decline is a direct result of the low demand for US-bound cargo and is a sign that the recent surge in US imports, which occurred after the temporary halt of higher US tariffs, will not have the lasting impact we had initially expected,” Drewry said. Drewry expects spot rates to continue to decline next week as well due to excess capacity and weak demand. Drewry’s container forecaster continues to see softening rates in the second half of the year, with the timing and volatility of rate changes dependent on US President Donald Trump’s future tariffs and on capacity changes related to the introduction of the US penalties on Chinese ships, which are uncertain. Rates from online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos also showed significant decreases to both US coasts. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, said the US’s 12 May tariff reduction on Chinese goods spurred a rebound in China-US container volumes that seems to be losing steam. “Possibly expecting a longer demand surge, carriers have also added what is now too much capacity to the transpacific, especially to the West Coast,” Levine said. Even with these tariff-driven pressures that pushed rates up sharply in June, however, the peaks for both lanes were at least $1,000/FEU lower than prices a year ago and may point to overall capacity growth in the container market, Levine said. Container ships and costs for shipping containers are relevant to the chemical industry because while most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, container ships transport polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are shipped in pellets. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is also shipped in containers. They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks. CONTAINER IMPORT TARIFFS AVERAGE 21% – MAERSKUS importers averaged an effective 21% tariff on all containerized imports, according to container shipping major Maersk. In a market update, the carrier said visibility has worsened and trade barriers have increased since the US formally announced its tariff package to the world on 2 April, the carrier said. “On average, companies are currently paying an effective average tariff rate of approximately 21% relative to container load on all US imports,” according to Maersk’s container-weighted effective average tariff rate metric. At its peak, shortly after 2 April, the average effective rate was 54%. The following chart from Maersk shows the container-weighted average effective tariff rate on US imports from 5 November. “For now, most country-specific import tariffs are paused while long-term deals are being negotiated, with deadlines coming up in July and August,” Maersk said. LIQUID TANKER RATES EDGE LOWER ON TRANSATLANTIC Rates for liquid chemical tankers ex-US Gulf were largely stable this week, except for declines along the US Gulf (USG) to Europe trade lane. This route remains largely dependent on strong contract volumes as most of the regular carriers were able to fill any excess capacity. Despite the limited available space, spot cargoes were not really discussed in the market this week as any spot interest is all but nonexistent along this trade lane. Most of the spot cargoes reported were diethylene glycol (DEG), styrene and caustic soda. From the USG to Asia, spot rates remain soft, particularly for smaller parcels but remain steady for larger parcels as the lingering uncertainty around tariffs continues to weigh on the market. The market overall has been relatively weak, leaving owners to remain flexible on rates to complete voyages. Spot cargoes of monoethylene glycol (MEG) and ethanol were seen in the market for July and early August dates. At present, owners are awaiting final contract nominations so it is still unclear whether any additional space will be available. If nominations are slower than expected, this would open additional space and could push rates lower. On the USG to Brazil trade lane, the market has been steady leading rates to remain unchanged week on week. There was a stable level of spot activity with only a handful of new requirements, however, there was a slight uptick in spot inquiries but not enough to influence a change in rates. Most frequently discussed in the market were ethanol and caustic soda cargoes.  Several traders reported inquiries about a one-year period contract of affreightment (COA) of various easy chemicals, starting in September for 5,000 tonnes/month. Bunker fuel prices continue to remain strong, on the back of higher energy prices due to the ongoing middle east crisis and volatility. Additional reporting by Kevin Callahan Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Logistics: Impact on chemicals and energy topic page

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Brazil’s highly protectionist model to cushion domestic producers from overseas competition is suffocating other parts of the production chain in a country obliged to import around half of its chemicals demand, the trade group representing plastics transformers Abiplast said this week. Instead of helping to maintain or expand industrialization, those “misguided” protectionist policies have contributed to the opposite in past decades, added Abiplast. The trade group’s statement could be seen as part of its lobbing against antidumping duties (ADDs) in place or being studied on several polymers, as well as the import tariffs on several chemicals implemented in October 2024 for 12 months and which continuation must be decided upon in coming weeks. COSTS ON TRANSFORMERSAbiplast said some of the higher import tariffs implemented in 2024 or ADDs in place have hit its member companies hard as they have to pay more key materials such the widely used polymers: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). “We are the only country in the world to apply antidumping measures on PP against the US, while other essential resins such as PVC, PET and PE continue to be protected by heavy tariffs. This model, which is repeated systematically, has suffocated the industry, hindering our competitiveness and innovation,” said Abiplast. “[The hike in import tariffs in 2024] Deepened the cost gap we face: we pay up to 40% more for plastic resins than our international competitors. The result: more expensive products for Brazilians, higher inflation, and less capacity to compete globally. This protectionist policy, instead of strengthening, accelerates the country’s deindustrialization.” Abiplast members are not only being hit by higher costs but by lost work as companies are increasingly opting to import finished products, instead of buying them from local transformers as their final prices have risen due to the higher tariffs. According to its calculations, imports of finished plastic products grew by 29% in 2024, a figure which could even be higher this year since the hike in tariffs only affected the last quarter of 2024. The increase will be inevitable because, “we suffocate those who transform and create opportunities”, in Brazil as companies buy finished product abroad due to high prices at home, ultimately propping up other countries’ manufacturing sectors, said Abiplast. “We cannot accept that the defense of strategic inputs devastates important sectors and destroys jobs. The government urgently needs to take a strategic look at the development of the entire productive sector, in order to strengthen the country’s economy,” said Abiplast. “If it wants to promote innovation, sustainability and competitiveness, it must break with the logic of permanent protection of raw materials and balance the tariff escalation. Brazil can no longer be a prisoner of policies that support a few and harm many.” UNPLEASANT REALITIESAbiplast finished saying that, while Brazil’s policymakers and analyst at large are highly critical of the US’ protectionist shift with Donald Trump as president, the reality in Brazil does not differ much from that of the US. In Brazil, sharply higher US import tariffs announced and then paused by US President Donald Trump in April came to be known as the ‘tarifaco’ – which could be translated as the big tariff hit. The difference between the US and Brazil’s ‘tarifacos’ is that Brazil’s has been going on for decades and it has been suffered in silence by many companies in manufacturing, said Abiplast. “While the world is perplexed by Donald Trump’s super tariff package against China, here we have been living with a silent tarifaco for years,” it concluded. Brazil’s Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services, which oversees foreign trade policies under the body Gecex, had not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing. Abiquim, which represents chemicals producers such as Braskem or Unipar, and which has actively lobbied for most of the protectionist measures Abiplast criticizes, had not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing. Thumbnail image: Santos Port in Sao Paulo state, Latin America’s largest port (Image source: Port of Santos Authority)

LONDON (ICIS)–European policymakers need to accelerate hydrogen mobility in the region to avoid it stagnating, a group of CEOs have stated in a joint letter to EU and Member State leaders. The letter has been signed by executives from more than 30 companies, including chemicals firms such as Syensqo, Chemours, Johnson Matthey and Honeywell. They are calling for hydrogen mobility to be firmly positioned at the heart of Europe’s clean transport and industrial strategies. Immediate and targeted policy support should be utilized to unlock investment, and scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure across the EU. “Despite progress, the CEOs warn that hydrogen mobility in Europe will stagnate unless a more coordinated and pragmatic policy framework is implemented to support the rollout of the necessary infrastructure and achieve the scale needed for the hydrogen mobility market to flourish,” said the Global Hydrogen Mobility Alliance, a recently launched lobby group which has publicized the letter. Cost and complexity should be reduced by simplifying EU regulations, the group added.

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–Indonesia has signed agreements worth around $27 billion with Saudi Arabia during President Prabowo Subianto’s visit to the Middle East kingdom, in areas including petrochemicals and energy. The agreements and memorandums of understanding (MoU) span private sector institutions between the two countries in fields such as clean energy, petrochemical industries, and aviation fuel services, according to a statement by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on 2 July. Other areas of cooperation agreed upon include the development of the circular carbon economy and clean hydrogen, as well as the supply of crude oil and petrochemicals. Among the agreements include Indonesia state oil and gas firm Pertamina’s collaboration with ACWA Power for the development of 500MW of clean energy, and Pertamina Patra Niaga’s cooperation with AlShams for jet fuel services, according to a statement by the Indonesian Kementerian Luar Negeri (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) on Thursday. President Prabowo left Saudi Arabia on Thursday. Bilateral trade between Saudi Arabia and Indonesia amounted to around $31.5 billion over the past five years, SPA said. Discussions between Indonesia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on a free trade agreement (FTA) are underway. The GCC is a Middle Eastern bloc consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Discussions on the FTA were last held in February 2025 and both Saudi Arabia and Indonesia expressed their aspirations to conclude discussions in the near future, the two sides said during the meeting.

Correction: In the ICIS story headlined “US announces Vietnam trade deal, will impose 20% tariffs” dated 2 July 2025, please read in paragraphs 7 and 14 as … trillion … instead of … billion … A corrected story follows. HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US will impose 20% tariffs on imports from Vietnam and 40% tariffs on transshipments – while Vietnam will charge no tariffs on US imports, according to a trade agreement that the US president announced on Wednesday. “The Terms are that Vietnam will pay the United States a 20% Tariff on any and all goods sent into our Territory, and a 40% Tariff on any Transshipping,” President Donald Trump said on social media. “In return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade. In other words, they will ‘OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,’ meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff.” The transshipment tariff would discourage China or other countries using Vietnam as an intermediary to export goods to the US under more favorable trade terms. Meanwhile, tariffs are not paid by the country of origin. Instead, they are a tax levied by the government on the importer of record. The government of Vietnam has not confirmed the tariff rates, but it did say that the negotiating delegations of the two countries had reached a joint statement on what it called “a fair, balanced reciprocal trade agreement”. Vietnam also urged the US to recognize it as a market economy and to lift export restrictions on certain high-tech products. Vietnam is the sixth largest source of imports by value to the US in 2024, with shipments totaling $136.5 billion. The US had initially proposed tariffs on Vietnamese imports of 46% on 2 April. Those were soon lowered to 10% during a 90-day pause that is scheduled to end on 9 July. VIETNAMESE TRADE DEAL TO HAVE LITTLE IMMEDIATE CHEM EFFECTFor now, the trade deal will have little immediate effect on shipments of plastics and chemicals between the countries. The US imports small amounts of plastics and chemicals from Vietnam. Electronic machinery, parts for nuclear plants and furniture made up more than 60% of the goods the US imported from the country in 2024. Organic chemicals, plastics and rubber each made up less than 5% of total US imports from Vietnam in 2024. For US exports to Vietnam, plastics made up the second largest category, accounting for 6.37% of the total in value. On a volume basis, some of the largest plastic exports from the US to Vietnam include linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), according to ICIS. In total, the US exported $11.4 billion to Vietnam in 2024. US imports will play a larger role in Vietnam’s chemical industry after the completion of the Long Son Petrochemicals Complex, which will include a cracker that can use ethane or propane as a feedstock. The complex will receive ethane from the US under a 15-year deal between Enterprise Products and Siam Cement Group (SCG) which owns the subsidiary that is developing the complex. VIETNAM IS SECOND TRADE DEAL FOR USVietnam joins the UK among the countries that reached trade arrangements with the US since it announced on 9 April a 90-day pause on its proposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from most of the world. Under the UK agreement, the US will preserve its 10% baseline tariffs on imports from the UK. It will relax its sectoral tariffs on UK imports of automobiles and eliminate them on imports of steel and aluminium. The UK made concessions on US imports of ethanol and beef. The US and China are working under a different arrangement under which the two countries agreed to pause their proposed triple-digit tariff increases through to mid-August. The US and Canada seek to reach a trade agreement by 21 July. Thumbnail shows a type of container ship that features prominently in trade. Image by Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock. (recast paragraphs 7, 14 with billion instead of trillion)

LONDON (ICIS)–On 2 July, a spokesperson for energy supplier E.ON told ICIS that its “international hydrogen imports, hydrogen production, and midstream activities will be deprioritized” as part of the company’s integration of its green gas business into its energy infrastructure solutions (EIS) business unit. E.ON confirmed that this includes the cancellation of its proposed 20MW HydroHarbourEssen plant in Essen, Germany. It was expected to produce 2,300 tons of renewable hydrogen per year by 2027. The company also confirmed it had exited the H2.Ruhr project, a collaboration with Enel, Iberdrola, ABB and SAP to construct a hydrogen pipeline in the Ruhr area of Germany, proposed to initially connect Essen and Duisberg. Announced in 2021, the project targeted delivery of up to 80,000 tons of renewable hydrogen and ammonia per year. This is the latest blow to the German hydrogen industry, after steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal announced last month that it had cancelled its renewable hydrogen-based decarbonisation plans for two of its steel plants in Bremen and Eisenhuttenstadt, despite securing €1.3 billion in subsidies. This was followed by postponements of EWE’s 50MW project in Bremen and LEAG’s 10MW plant in Lusatia. “National and European overregulation undermines the economic viability of renewable energy sources” a spokesperson for EWE told ICIS at the time. “The energy sector and industry cannot shoulder the ramp-up alone. Policymakers must now act swiftly to establish reliable framework conditions and targeted incentives to make investments in hydrogen technologies economically viable.” “Uncertainty regarding availability and prices in a future hydrogen market is high” a spokesperson for LEAG told ICIS. “The end of the German Ampel government last year has indefinitely delayed the implementation of the federal Power Plant Safety Act, a key regulatory pre-condition.” E.ON said that the company “will focus on integrated, B2B [business-to-business] customer-oriented hydrogen solutions within the framework of EIS. This will enable us to create an even more attractive portfolio of solutions to support our B2B customers”. It added that the company is “convinced that green hydrogen will play a role in a decarbonized energy future, especially for hard-to-decarbonize industrial B2B sectors”. In 2024 E.ON had selected technology group Andritz to complete feasibility studies for the HydroHarbourEssen project. Germany targets 10GW electrolyzer capacity by 2030.

Energy regulator designates OPEM as NEMO ahead of market integration Exchange to start spot operations by year-end, traders Moldova must launch a functional electricity balancing market LONDON (ICIS)–Moldova has come a step closer towards EU electricity market coupling after adopting landmark legislation and designating OPEM, a subsidiary of the Romanian state electricity exchange OPCOM, as its nominated electricity market operator (NEMO). The Moldovan parliament has adopted a new electricity law which will transpose key provisions of the Energy Community’s electricity integration package as a preliminary move towards full participation in the EU’s single day-ahead and intra-day markets, according to a statement by the Energy Community on 1 July. The electricity integration package (EIP) enables full market integration of contracting parties into the single European market for electricity. As a contracting party of the Energy Community, an international institution tasked to extend the EU’s single market to neighboring states, Moldova is required to align its electricity and gas market regulations with the EU. Once transposed, the act is expected to help stabilize prices, boost energy resilience, and improve the management of renewable flows, especially following the launch of one of the country’s first green energy tenders earlier this year. The Energy Community said it would continue to work with Moldovan authorities to support the swift adoption of the remaining five network codes and guidelines for electricity markets. These include rules related to forward capacity allocation, capacity allocation and congestion management, electricity balancing, system operation and the network code on emergency and restoration. Under the latest legislation, Moldova is expected to set up a spot market which will then ensure the full coupling of the Moldovan electricity market with those of the EU and neighboring Ukraine, also a contracting party of the Energy Community. The spot market will be launched by OPEM, and traders active regionally say it should be ready before the end of the year. Shortly after the adoption of the electricity law on 26 June, the regulator ANRE designated OPEM as the country’s NEMO, an entity mandated to operate the coupled day-ahead and intra-day integrated electricity markets in the EU. A local market source welcomed the news but said Moldova should first establish its electricity balancing market.

LONDON (ICIS)–Continued regulatory uncertainty over the status of bio-based plastics and pyrolysis oil within the EU is hampering demand from the petrochemicals sector, stalling investment, and fragmenting prices by end-use for both bio-naphtha and pyrolysis oil. Regulation will dictate future end-use share between chemicals and fuel Regulation could turbocharge demand Regulatory uncertainty challenging investment cases and fragmenting markets Regulation has the potential to significantly boost chemicals market consumption for both materials – as it has done for packaging grades of mechanical recycling in Europe – and to speed the transition away from fossil-derived material. Nevertheless, a lack of regulatory clarity and impetus has seen chemicals buying interest in both markets reduce in 2024 and 2025 (albeit from a high base) and made financing for new projects and infrastructure challenging. Differing accounting rules for mass-balance, for example, drastically alter potential profitability, and a lack of clarity makes it challenging to predict return on investment. The impact of the uncertainty has intensified as wider conditions across European chemicals and financial markets have deteriorated in the wake of the energy and cost of living crises. With both sectors remaining nascent, this will likely impact on scalability timeframes for both. For both markets the uncertainty centers on mandatory sustainability targets under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and End of Life Vehicle Regulation (ELVR) definitions, and mass-balance accounting rules. PPWRUnder the PPWR, the European Commission will be required to review the state of technological development and environmental performance of bio-based plastic packaging within three years of the legislation’s entrance in to force (which occurred in Q1 2025). Following the review, the Commission will be required to bring forth legislative proposals for targets to increase the use of bio-based plastics in packaging. This will include the possibility of bio-based material contributing to recycling targets for food-contact material where recycled material is not available. For pyrolysis oil, there remains lingering uncertainty on definitions under Directive 2008/98/EC – also known as the Waste Framework Directive – which forms the basis of the majority of EU recycling legislation definitions. That directive defines recycling as “any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.” This has left the legal status of chemical recycling uncertain, particularly for pyrolysis, because pyrolysis oil conversion is an intermediate stage prior to conversion into recycled plastics. ELVRThe ELVR, meanwhile, remains at an early stage of its regulatory chain. The European Parliament committee on the environment, climate and food safety and the committee on the Internal Market and consumer protection proposed a series of amendments to the European Commission’s draft revision of its end-of-life vehicle regulation – including the allowance of bio-based material to count towards mandatory recycled targets proposed for the sector. The EU Council, meanwhile, adopted its position on 11 July, which stands in stark contrast. The EU Council is proposing that by seven years and 11 months after the entry in to force of the bill, the Commission should review the environmental performance and technological development of bio-based plastic in vehicles and propose legislation for bio-based plastic targets, sustainably requirements and whether bio-based plastic might count towards or be separate from recycled content targets. There are also differences in the approach to the recycled content targets themselves. The EU Council’s position is for a graduated target with new vehicles needing to contain 15% recycled plastic six years after the regulation comes into force, 20% recycled plastic content after eight years, and 25% after 10 years. For each target 25% of the recycled plastic would need to have originated from end-of-life vehicles. The European Parliament committees’ recommended position is for a 20% recycled plastic target six years after the regulation comes in to force, with 15% of that needing to come from end-of-life vehicles. Its position is to allow both post-consumer and pre-consumer material to count towards the targets, and would allow bio-based plastics and chemically recycled material to count towards these targets. MASS-BALANCE ACCOUNTINGEven if both pyrolysis oil and bio-naphtha are accepted as counting towards both the PPWR and ELVR, given that both are used as a naphtha substitute in a cracker and typically co-processed with virgin naphtha, many see the acceptance of mass-balance as an essential enabler for chemical recycling to count towards recycling content thresholds. There have been different proposed accounting rules for mass-balance, all of which alter the possible recycled polymer output allocations, and therefore profitability throughout the chain, competitiveness against other regions that may adopt different rules, and the sector’s attractiveness to investors. The EU’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had been due to take a decision on mass-balance accounting rules under the single use plastics directive (SUPD) at the end of March 2024. It was understood from players familiar with the matter that the TAC decision was delayed due to ongoing discussions with regulators. It was then expected that a decision would be announced before the end of 2024, but this did not occur. An EU Commission policy advisor confirmed via email to ICIS that “the Commission is preparing an implementing act (planned for Q4/2025) that will extend the calculation, verification and reporting methodology to cover all recycling technologies, including chemical recycling”, under the SUPD. While this would only be applicable directly to the SUPD, it is seen as precedent-setting for other pieces of legislation, and would set out the EU’s general approach, giving some clarity to markets. FUEL LEGISLATION OUTPACING PLASTIC LEGISLATIONLegislation surrounding renewable fuels meanwhile, enjoys greater clarity, and targets under legislation such as the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III and the ‘fit for ‘55’ package are encouraging the use of both pyrolysis oil (under the fit for ’55 package fuel derived from plastic waste can count towards targets such as those for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) provided it meets certain criteria such as demonstrating emissions reduction). FRAGMENTATION OF PRICESEurope pricing for bio-naphtha is becoming increasingly fragmented depending on feedstock origin. As the market develops further, fragmentation is expected, based on whether the material is co-processed or not. The main feedstock routes for bio-naphtha include:- Used cooking oil (UCO) Crude tall oil (CTO) Tallow Typically, CTO-derived bio-naphtha trades at a premium to UCO-derived, with tallow showing the lowest achievable values. This is being driven by usage in gasoline blending to meet road fuel mandates, tighter overall supply, and a preference among some brand owners for CTO-derived (which is a by-product of wood pulp production) because of its traceability. Coupled with this, a significant premium is being charged for material accompanied by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data in particular, as companies increasingly focus on carbon reduction goals.  ISCC EU certified material commands the highest premium for bio-naphtha with values heard as high as €1,900/tonne ex-works Europe this week. ISCC EU certification verifies compliance with RED III. ISCC+ material meanwhile, is a voluntary certification scheme commonly used for chemical-bound material. Refineries, using bio-naphtha for fuel uses to meet targets under legislation such as the Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III), were understood to be more willing to consider a wider variety of bio-naphtha origins than chemicals. Chemical demand for bio-naphtha is currently concentrated on used UCO- and HVO-derived routes. USE OF TYRE-DERIVED PYROLYSIS OIL TO MEET BIO-FUEL TARGETSTyre-based pyrolysis oil producers are increasingly separating out bio-attributed content and polymer content in pyrolysis oil production, with bio-attributed content attracting premiums compared with polymer-derived tyre-based pyrolysis oil. Prices for bio-attributed material have been heard at up to $1,200/tonne FD Europe for imported material this week, and have been heard at around €1,000/tonne ex-works Europe in recent weeks. Alongside supply shortages, higher prices compared with polymer-derived material are because tyre-based pyrolysis oil is viewed as a relatively cheap source of biogenic content compared to alternatives such as bio-naphtha. Regulation will be a key driver of future overall pyrolysis oil and bio-naphtha demand and investment. Beyond that it will dictate which grades develop the greatest traction and the proportion of the market serving chemicals and fuel usage. The sooner the EU brings clarity to its approach, the sooner these markets will scale. Insight by Mark Victory ICIS is currently researching bio-naphtha pricing in Europe. If you’re interested in learning more, and to share your views on the market, please contact mark.victory@icis.com ICIS assesses more than 100 grades throughout the recycled plastic value chain globally – from waste bales through to pellets. This includes recycled polyethylene (R-PE), recycled PET (R-PET), R-PP, mixed plastic waste and pyrolysis oil.  Thumbnail image credit: Shutterstock

MUMBAI (ICIS)–India has launched an anti-dumping investigation into imports of linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) from five countries from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), as well as Malaysia. Imports from Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Malaysia will be probed, based on the notification issued by India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) on 30 June 2025. The investigation was prompted by a petition from the Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association (CPMA).