HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US can maintain nearly all the plastic and chemical tariffs it imposed this year after an appeals court granted on Thursday the government’s request to stay the judgment of a lower court. The stay will remain in place while the case is under consideration by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Earlier, the US lost a judgment over its tariffs in the US Court of International Trade. That lower court ruled that the president exceeded its authority when it imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These IEEPA tariffs included nearly all of the duties that the US imposed in 2025 on imports of commodity plastics and chemicals. Had the appeals court rejected the government’s request for a stay, then the US would have had 10 calendar days to withdraw the tariffs it imposed under IEEPA. The tariffs covered by the ruling include the following: The 10% baseline tariffs against most of the world that the US issued during its so-called Liberation Day event on 2 April. These include the reciprocal tariffs that were later paused. The US issued the tariffs under Executive Order 14257, which intended to address the nation’s trade deficit. The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Canada under Executive Order 14193. These were intended to address drug smuggling. The US later limited the scope of these tariffs to cover imported goods that do not comply with the nations’ trade agreement, known as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Mexico under Executive Order 14194. These were intended to address illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Like the Canadian tariffs, these were later limited to cover imported goods that did not comply with the USMCA. The 20% tariffs that the US imposed on imports from China under Executive Order 14195, which was intended to address drug smuggling. Because the appeals court granted the government’s request for a stay, the US can maintain the IEEPA tariffs. The ruling did not cover sectoral tariffs imposed on specific products like steel, aluminium and auto parts, and it does not cover the duties that the US imposed on Chinese imports during the first term of US President Donald Trump. IMPLICATIONS OF THE RULINGIf the ruling is upheld by the higher courts, it could bring some imports of plastics and chemicals back to the US while lowering costs of other products. While the US has large surpluses in many plastics and chemicals, it still imports several key commodities. US states that border Canada import large amounts of polyethylene (PE) and other plastics from that country because it is closer than the nation’s chemical hubs along the Gulf Coast. Other significant imports include base oils, ammonia, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), methanol and aromatics such as benzene, toluene and mixed xylenes (MX). RULING COULD REDIRECT CHINESE EXPORTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTSThe IEEPA tariffs of the US caused countries to redirect exports of plastics and chemicals to other markets, particularly to Europe. The result depressed prices for those plastics and chemicals. If the ruling holds, some of those exports could return to the US and reduce the quantity of exports arriving in Europe. The IEEPA tariffs had a similar effect on the plastic products exports by China. Those exports were redirected to other countries, especially southeast Asia. These redirected shipments flooded those countries with plastic goods, displacing local products and lowering domestic demand for the plastics used to make those products. If the ruling is restored by higher courts, then it could direct many of those shipments back to the US, although they would unlikely affect shipments of auto parts. Those shipments are covered by the sectoral tariffs, and the court ruling did not void those tariffs. RULING REMOVES BASIS FOR RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST US PLASTICS, CHEMSChina had already imposed blanket tariffs in retaliation to the IEEPA tariffs the US imposed on its exports. China unofficially granted waivers for US imports of ethane and PE, but those for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) were still covered by the duty. China relies on such imports as feedstock for its large fleet of propane dehydrogenation (PDH) units, which produce on-purpose propylene. If upheld, the ruling could restore many of those exports and improve propylene margins for those PDH units. The EU was preparing to impose retaliatory tariffs on exports of nearly every major commodity plastic from the US. Other proposals would cover EU imports of oleochemicals, tall oil, caustic soda and surfactants from the US. Canada also prepared a list of retaliatory tariffs that covered US imports of PE, polypropylene (PP) and other plastics, chemicals and fertilizers. If the ruling holds, it would remove the basis for the proposed tariffs of Canada and the EU as well as the existing ones already imposed by China. RULING WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THREAT OF FUTURE TARIFFSEven if the higher courts uphold the ruling and bars tariffs under IEEPA, the US has other means to impose duties that are outside of the bounds of the ruling. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Such tariffs would be limited to 15%, could last for 150 days and address balance of payment deficits. Tariffs imposed under the following statutes would require federal investigations, which could delay them by several months. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The president can impose tariffs of up to 50% against countries that discriminate against US commerce. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses unfair trade practices. This was the basis on the tariffs imposed on many Chinese imports during the peak of the trade war between the two countries. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which addresses imports with implications for national security. Trump used this provision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. The US has started Section 232 on the following imports: Pharmaceutical and active pharmaceutical ingredient (APIs) – Section 232 Semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment – Section 232 Medium and heavy-duty trucks, parts – Section 232 Critical minerals – Section 232 Copper – Section 232 Timber and lumber – Section 232 Commercial aircraft and jet engines – Section 232 Ship-to-shore cranes assembled in China or made with parts from China – Section 301 Shipbuilding – Section 301 The case number for the appeal is 2025-1812. The original lawsuit was filed in the US Court of International Trade by the plaintiffs VOS Selections, Genova Pipe, Microkits, FishUSA and Terry Precision Cycling. The case number is 25-cv-00066. Thumbnail Photo: A container ship, which transports goods overseas. (Image by Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock) Visit the ICIS Topic Page: US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Rates for shipping containers from Asia to the US are already facing upward pressure amid the 90-day tariff pause, but Wednesday’s ruling by a federal court could add fuel to the trend, according to shipping analysts. “The decision of the US Court of International Trade to deem [US President Donald] Trump’s sweeping tariffs as unlawful is good news for shippers – but it could signal the beginning of the next era of confusion in global supply chains,” analysts at ocean and freight rate analytics firm Xeneta said. Emily Stausboll, Xeneta senior shipping analyst, said that even if the appeal fails, Trump will not throw in the towel, and he has other levers to pull to achieve the same outcome as the sweeping tariffs. “We only have to look at the US government proposal to introduce port fees on China-affiliated ships and the SHIPS for America Act to understand the range of options at Trump’s disposal in the ongoing trade wars,” Stausboll said. Judah Levine, head of research at online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos, said the 90-day pause on 145% tariffs on Chinese goods has already driven a sharp rebound in ocean freight demand. “Shippers have been frontloading to beat the August expiration,” Levine said. “This ruling may add fuel to that trend, especially if tariffs are actually suspended – even temporarily.”’ Levine said that some shippers deterred by the 30% tariffs may now rush to move goods before the appeals process concludes or new tariff mechanisms are activated. “That could increase container demand even further, adding to the strength of the early start to peak season,” Levine said. RULING ADDS UNCERTAINTY Lars Jensen, president of consultant Vespucci Maritime, said the ruling by the court adds a new level of uncertainty for US importers. “Not only do they have to contend with the risks associated with changing tariffs, now it is also cast into doubt whether or not the announced tariffs will even be implementable – and this also raises the question whether tariffs paid in recent weeks can ultimately be reclaimed,” Jensen said in a post on LinkedIn. If, after appeals, the tariffs are ultimately found to be unlawfully implemented, shippers should have a good case for getting the paid tariffs back, Jensen 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. Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Logistics: Impact on chemicals and energy topic page

LONDON (ICIS)–Moody’s has cut its rating for Sasol from stable to negative on the back of “continued operating performance deterioration” in the face of weak chemicals and oil markets, the agency said on Thursday. The firm, which assesses the creditworthiness of company debt issuance, expects the South Africa-based major’s adjusted debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) to grow from 2.2 times to 3.0. “The weak performance of Sasol’s chemical business during the last 18 months has been characterized by falling prices, subdued demand, and continued capacity growth,” Moody’s said in a ratings note. “This has resulted in high levels of asset impairments as well as continued margin deterioration.” Sasol recently set out a performance programme to improve operational performance, with its chemicals business substantially underperforming peers over the last few years. “Performance over the last four years has not lived up to our own expectations,” said Sasol CEO Simon Baloyi, speaking earlier this month. Earlier this year, the company booked a South African Rand (R) 58.9 billion ($3.3 billion) impairment on its chemicals Americas ethane value chain as a result of softer market conditions, as well as R5.3 billion on its Africa polyethylene chlor-alkali and polyvinyl chain and R7.8 billion on its Secunda, South Africa, liquid fuels refinery. The company has also set out plans to mothball or close four units across its US and European operations by the end of the calendar year 2025, due in most cases to high costs and little expectation of a substantial market recovery. Moody’s projects that Sasol’s EBITDA margin will fall to 20% in 2025 and 2026, compared to 22.5% in 2024 and 25% in 2023. “Sustained low oil prices will result in challenges in Sasol’s fuels business, however, the company’s hedging program will partly mitigate the downside risk,” Moody’s said. Sasol had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication. Thumbnai; photo: Sasol’s headquarters in Sandton, South Africa (Source: Shutterstock)

HOUSTON (ICIS)–A US court ruled on Wednesday that the president cannot impose global tariffs under an emergency act, a judgment that would void many of the tariffs that the nation imposed in 2025 against nearly every country in the world. The administration of US President Donald Trump filed a notice that it was appealing the ruling. Under the judgment issued by the US Court of International Trade, the US has 10 calendar days to withdraw the following tariffs: – The 10% baseline tariffs against most of the world that the US issued during its so-called Liberation Day event on 2 April. These include the reciprocal tariffs that were later paused. The US issued the tariffs under Executive Order 14257, which intended to address the nation’s trade deficit. – The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Canada under Executive Order 14193. These were intended to address the flow of illicit drugs. The US later limited the scope of these tariffs to cover imported goods that do not comply with the nations’ trade agreement, known as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). – The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Mexico under Executive Order 14194. These were intended to address the flow of immigrants and illicit drugs. Like the Canadian tariffs, these were later limited to cover imported goods that did not comply with the USMCA. – The 20% tariffs that the US imposed on imports from China under Executive Order 14195, which was intended to address the flow of illicit drugs. The US imposed these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president authority to take actions to address a severe national security threat. To justify the use of the IEEPA, Trump declared that the trade deficit, drug smuggling and illegal immigration constituted national emergencies. If the ruling stands, it would remove the tariffs that the US has imposed on many imports of commodity plastics and chemicals. By extension, the ruling would remove the threat of retaliatory tariffs that other countries could impose on the nation’s substantial exports of polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other ethylene derivatives. The court’s order does not cover the sectoral tariffs that the US has imposed on specific products such as steel and aluminium. In addition, it does not cover the Section 301 tariffs that the US imposed against Chinese imports during Trump’s first term. These tariffs were intended to address unfair trade practices. RATIONALE BEHIND THE COURT’S JUDGMENTThe US constitution delegates the power to impose tariffs to congress. Although congress has delegated trade authority to the president, it had set clear limitations that allowed the legislature to retain the power to impose tariffs. The IEEPA does not delegate unbounded tariff authority to the president, the court said. “Any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.” The authority that congress delegated to the president under IEEPA is limited and does not include the power to impose any tariffs, the court said. COURT FINDS NO EMERGENCYEven if the president could impose tariffs under IEEPA, the trade deficit does not constitute an emergency, the court ruled. The US already has a statute to address trade deficits under Section 122. “Section 122 removes the president’s power to impose remedies in response to balance-of-payments deficits, and specifically trade deficits, from the broader powers granted to a president during a national emergency under IEEPA by establishing an explicit non-emergency statute with greater limitations,” it said. In addition, the court found that drug trafficking and illegal immigration fail to meet the emergency threshold established under IEEPA. To meet that threshold, the emergency must have a substantial part of its source outside of the US and it must pose a threat to the nation’s national security, foreign policy or economy. Also, the emergency must be unusual and extraordinary. The action that the president takes must deal directly with the threat. The court found that the tariffs fail to directly deal with drug trafficking and illegal immigration. While they may provide the US with leverage to negotiate agreements, such leverage does not meet the threshold of addressing the emergency at hand. The lawsuit was filed in the US Court of International Trade by the plaintiffs VOS Selections, Genova Pipe, Microkits, Fishusa and Terry Precision Cycling. The case number is 25-cv-00066. Thumbnail shows containers, which are used in international trade. Image by Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock. Visit the ICIS Topic Page: US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Brazil’s foreign trade committee Gecex has postponed a meeting where it was expected to decide on imposing antidumping duties (ADDs) polyethylene (PE) imports from the US and Canada. The decision has created uncertainty in the country’s PE market, which widely expected the ADDs to be implemented from June. In a note on its website, Gecex stated the “meeting will be rescheduled” but offered no further details. A spokesperson for Gecex said to ICIS it did not have any further information to offer. Gecex’s meeting this week planned to discuss its investigation into allegations by Braskem, Brazil’s sole PE producer, that US and Canadian producers are exporting PE to Brazil below fair market value. According to market sources, Braskem had already been communicating to customers price increases on the back of the expected ADDs. Earlier this week, Gecex increased ADDs on US polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from from 8.2% to 43.7%. Gecex is also investigating potential polyethylene terephthalate (PET) dumping from Malaysia and Vietnam, following ADDs proposals by Indorama and Alpek. The plastics transformation sector in Brazil said ADDs in place and those potentially implemented in the near future increase costs for all major thermoplastic resins, raising input costs for manufacturers. Meanwhile, the trade group representing producers Abiquim said the low operating rates across the country’s chemical plants were partly a result of unfair global competition, and fully supported ADDs being imposed on US and Canadian PE. Front page picture: Port of Santos in Sao Paulo, Latin America’s largest Source: Port of Santos Authority Clarification: Re-casts and clarifies last paragraph

LONDON (ICIS)–BASF will become the sole owner of Alsachimie, taking over the shares of former joint venture partner DOMO Chemicals, the German major announced on Wednesday. Currently, BASF holds 51% of the shares and is set to buy DOMO’s 49% stake in the company which, subject to consultations with relevant social bodies of Alsachimie, will close by mid-2025. Alsachimie was founded by the two companies in February 2020 and situated on the French-German border, producing key materials for polyamides, including KA-oil, adipic acid and hexamethylenediamine adipate (AH salt). The purchase would complement BASF’s nylon 6,6 precursor production at its site in Chalampe, France, and enable further backward integration into key raw materials for the value chain in Europe. “By taking over the shares of our partner DOMO Chemicals, we are further strengthening our leading position and long-term commitment to the nylon 6,6 value chain and paving the way for future growth with our customers in industries such as automotive and textiles,” said BASF board member Stephan Kothrade. “The intended transaction aligns with our strategy to continue to focus on delivering tailored polyamide solutions in the core segments automotive, consumer goods, industrial and electrical & electronics industries,” said DOMO Chemicals CEO Yves Bonte.

BARCELONA (ICIS)–ExxonMobil is selling its refinery at Gravenchon, France, to Canadian refining group North Atlantic. The two companies have entered exclusive negotiations for North Atlantic to acquire an 82.89% controlling interest in Esso Société Anonyme Française SA and 100%  of ExxonMobil Chemical France. Filing of a tender offer is expected in the first quarter of 2026 for the deal which includes Exxon’s refinery at the Gravenchon site, the second largest refinery in France. The  transaction will be submitted to local trade unions in accordance with French law. In 2024, ExxonMobil sold its Fos-Sur-Mer refinery near Marseille, France, along with fuel terminals in Toulouse and Villette. The company also closed its cracker and downstream production  at Gravenchon in 2024. At the time, the company said the site had lost more than €500 million since 2018 and despite efforts to improve the site’s economics, it remained uncompetitive. According to the ICIS Supply & Demand Database ExxonMobil still has some small chemicals capacities at Gravenchon and nearby Port Gerome including propylene, polyalphaolefins and oligomers. Local trades union, CSEC, said in a press release that ExxonMobil would market chemicals and specialty products on behalf of the new owners. ExxonMobil did not reply to a request for confirmation of this. It also has large base oils capacities in France including 12,000 barrels/day at Port Jerome and 3,200 barrels/day at Gravenchon. In a statement released on 28 May, North Atlantic said it has the ambition to consolidate Gravenchon as a center of French energy and industry for decades and to grow North Atlantic into a transatlantic energy champion. Located on a 1,500-acre site in the Normandy region of France, the combined facility is one of the largest integrated chemical complexes in western Europe. The refinery includes two distillation trains, several conversion units and associated logistics facilities. The site has the capacity to process 230,000 barrels/day of crude oil and other feedstocks, according to North Atlantic. North Atlantic said it aims to develop Gravenchon into a green energy hub to accelerate the deployment of low-carbon fuels and renewable power. The company said it is committed to maintain employment and existing compensation and benefits. Ted Lomond, president and CEO of North Atlantic and president of North Atlantic France said: “This is a pivotal moment for North Atlantic as we enhance our transatlantic presence and commitment to energy security through innovative energy solutions aligned with global energy needs”. Ajay Parmar, ICIS director of energy and refining said: “My view is that Exxon is choosing to sell assets where profitability has been and likely will continue to be dented going forward. Refinery margins in Europe have returned back to around their pre-COVID levels this year, after a few years of bumper profits post-pandemic.” He added: “These refinery assets are less profitable and so the company is probably looking to divest for this reason. Exxon/Esso also sold off the Fos-Sur-Mer refinery last year – I think the strategy is to steadily exit these lower margin businesses.” Photo: Part of an oil refinery complex (Shutterstock) Focus article by Will Beacham

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Brazil has approved plans to raise antidumping duties (ADDs) on polyvinyl chloride (PVC) imports from the US from 8.2% to 43.7%. The decision, taken late Tuesday, implements one of Brazil’s highest ADDs rates. The sharp hike in duties was taken after a proposal filed in 2024 by local polymers major Braskem and caustic soda and chlorine derivatives producer Unipar, Brazil’s main PVC producers. “The proposal to increase in ADDs applied to imports of suspension polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin originating in the US was granted, due to a change in circumstances, from 8.2% to 43.7%,” said Gecex, Brazil’s body in charge of foreign trade. Gecex is also investigating potential polyethylene (PE) dumping from the US, a proposal brought forward by Braskem, as well as potential polyethylene terephthalate (PET) dumping from Malaysia and Vietnam, following proposals by Indorama and Alpek. The plastics transformation sector in Brazil has said ADDs in place and those potentially implemented in the near future are increasing costs for all major thermoplastic resins, raising input costs for manufacturers. Unsurprisingly, the trade group representing producers Abiquim has said the fears about higher costs due to ADDs “do not hold up” when taking into account a beleaguered chemicals production sector with historic low operating rates.

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Fears within the Brazilian manufacturing sector about rising input costs and higher inflation if antidumping duties (ADDs) are imposed on US and Canadian polyethylene (PE) “do not hold up” when taking into account a beleaguered chemicals production sector, according to trade group Abiquim. A spokesperson for the trade group, which largely represents the chemicals producing side, said the low operating rates across the country’s chemical plants were partly a result of unfair global competition, and fully supported ADDs being imposed on US and Canadian PE. Brazil’s government body for foreign trade, the Foreign Trade Chamber (Gecex), is to meet on 29 May to take a decision on the matter. The investigation into possible PE dumping by the US and Canada started in November after a proposal by local polymers major Braskem, which has a commanding voice in Abiquim. “The narrative that specific anti-dumping duties, applied to correct unfair trade operations, could pose inflationary risks in the plastics processing production chain and affect production levels in the economy as a whole, simply does not hold up, given that Brazil is a price taker in thermoplastic resins (i.e. it follows variations in the international market),” said Abiquim. “[Moreover] There is an average idle capacity of 36% in the Brazilian chemicals sector (data from 2024) that can be reversed with the implementation of ADDs. Trade defence investigations in Brazil follow a rigorous and technical procedure, focusing on determining dumping margins, damage to the domestic industry and the causal link between the two.” If those technical parameters are met, Gecex will implement the ADDs “in the interest” of the country, adding that the ADDs would strictly follow World Trade Organization (WTO) rules regarding unfair trade. “Allowing dumping is not justified by any reason, since it allows the distortion of international trade rules, allowing the sale of products often below production cost only to aggressively capture the market,” added Abiquim. GROWING PROTECTIONISMHowever, trade groups representing import-heavy manufacturing companies, in a country where half of chemicals demand is covered by imports, have warned that those ADDs and other protectionist measures implemented by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s administration increase input costs and, ultimately, inflation. The truth is that Lula’s cabinet does listen to industrial producers. The main constituency of the president’s Workers’ Party (PT) is industrial workers, and the health of manufacturing employment is key for its electoral prospects. As the 2026 general election looms, those voters may consider their support for the PT if manufacturing, which already came late to the post-pandemic recovery compared with other sectors, starts faltering again in 2025. This is precisely the argument from the other side. Increasing costs manufacturers could their hit their activity and ultimately employment in manufacturing as a whole could be negatively affected. In a written statement to ICIS this week, Jose Ricardo Roriz, president of the trade group representing plastic transformers Abiplast, reaffirmed his opposition to protectionist measures which increase costs for importers. But that side of the argument has so far failed to turn its lobbying into concrete actions. Since he took office in January 2023, Lula’s cabinet has approved most of the protectionist measures chemical producers demanded. In 2023, it reintroduced a tax break for the purchase of inputs by chemical companies, called REIQ, which was withdrawn by the previous center-right administration. In 2024, the administration re-imposed ADDs on US-origin PP and approved higher import tariffs on dozens of chemicals. Meanwhile, Gecex is investigating another proposal to implement ADDs on polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a proposal by Braskem and caustic soda and chlorine derivatives producer Unipar. In April, Gecex also began a probe into potential polyethylene terephthalate (PET) dumping from Malaysia and Vietnam, a proposal brought forward by Indorama and Alpek. Brazil’s Congress is currently debating a bill contemplating state subsidies or credit lines at a favorable rate for chemicals companies, called Presiq. If approved, the program could be the “savior” of struggling chemicals producers, according to Abiquim’s director general Andre Passos in an interview with ICIS.