New AD/CVD Petitions: Active Anode Material from China

Home | China Law Blog | New AD/CVD Petitions: Active Anode Material from China Table of Contents Toggle New AD/CVD Petitions Against Active Anode Material from China On December 17, 2024, new antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions were filed against imports of active anode material from China. Active anode material is the primary component in the anode of lithium-ion batteries used to power electric vehicles, consumer electronics, medical equipment and other applications. The petition was filed by the American Active Anode Material Producers (“AAMP”), consisting of five U.S. producers. The AAMP describe themselves as a nascent domestic industry and allege that Chinese imports have inhibited the establishment of U.S. production by the fledgling U.S. industry. Only a small handful of U.S. trade remedy cases have invoked the material retardation trade law provision that was intended to protect a domestic industry that has not yet been established. In this case, it is questionable whether the imposition of AD/ CVD duties on active anode materials will actually help the U.S. active anode industry become commercially viable. China is so dominant not only as battery producers, but also for most of the major inputs (lithium, electrolytes, separators, cathodes, anodes) used to produce batteries. China is the only import source for active anode material. Imposing AD/CVD duties at one stage of the production process for lithium-ion batteries may help one U.S. industry (e.g., U.S. active anode producers), but at the same time, cause significant harm for downstream U.S. producers (e.g., U.S. companies like Ford, GM and Tesla that produce batteries for their electric vehicles) who rely on those Chinese inputs that are not available from any other sources but now may have to pay significantly higher prices because of the AD/CVD duties. These AD/CVD investigations will be conducted by two federal agencies. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) will investigate whether the subject imports have materially retarded the establishment of the domestic industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) will investigate whether the subject imports are being sold to the United States at less than fair value (“dumping”) or benefit from unfair government subsidies. Both agencies have to make affirmative findings of material retardation (ITC) or of dumping or subsidies (DOC) in order for AD/CVD duties to be imposed on the subject imports. Scope The petition included the following proposed scope definition: Active anode material, whether synthetic, natural, or a blend of synthetic or natural; with or without coating; regardless of whether in powder, dry, liquid, or any other form. Subject merchandise typically has a maximum size of 80 microns. Subject merchandise has an energy density of 330 milliamp hours per gram or greater and a degree of graphitization of 80% or greater. Subject merchandise can be referred to as “active anode material.” Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is mixed with silicon based active materials, e.g., silicon-oxide (SiOx), silicon-carbon (SiC), or silicon, or additives such as carbon black or carbon nanotubes. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of the combination of compounds that comprise the graphite material; the graphite contained in the subject merchandise has a minimum purity content of 90% carbon. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is imported independently, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode. Only the anode grade graphite material is covered when entered as part of a mixture with silicon based active materials, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode. Active anode material subject to the investigations may be classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2504.10.5000 and 3801.10.5000. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheading 3801.90.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive. Alleged AD/CVD Margins Petitioner calculated an estimated dumping margins ranging from 828% to 921%. Petitioner did not provide any specific subsidy margin calculations. Named Exporters/ Producers Petitioner included a list of companies that it believes are producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. See attached list of exporters here. Named U.S. Importers Petitioner included a list of companies that it believes are U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. See attached list of importers here. Estimated Schedule of Investigations December 17, 2024 – Petitions filed January 6, 2025 – DOC initiates investigation January 8, 2025 – ITC Staff Conference January 31, 2025 – ITC preliminary determination May 16, 2025 – DOC CVD preliminary determination (assuming extended deadline) (3/12/25 – unextended) July 15, 2025 – DOC AD preliminary determination (assuming extended deadline) (5/26/25 – unextended) November 27, 2025 – DOC AD/CVD final determinations (extended) January 11, 2026 – ITC final determination (extended) January 18, 2026 – DOC AD/CVD orders issued (extended) Check Out Our China Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Adams Lee Adams Lee has more than twenty years’ experience providing strategic advice and legal guidance on complex international trade and administrative regulatory matters to US and foreign companies, trade associations, and foreign governments. He advises companies in a broad range of industries on international trade remedy and trade policy issues. Adams brings a wealth of knowledge to Harris Sliwoski’s international trade practice. He is adept at quickly evaluating strategic options and developing the best comprehensive legal approach in light of relevant policy and case law. Beyond achieving significant DOC and ITC results that improve his clients’ competitive position, Adams helps them understand complex trade issues so they can make well-informed business decisions. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More International Manufacturing, International Trade Law, Legal News Related Posts September 15, 2026 Your AI-Drafted China Contract Says It Needs a Lawyer. Listen to It. September 11, 2026 Forensic Accountants in China Business Litigation: How True Numbers Can Tell the Wrong Story September 4, 2026 China NNN Agreement or Trademark Registration? You Usually Need Both September 1, 2026 AI Didn't Replace Lawyers. It Gave Us the 48-Page Contract. August 27, 2026 Do I Need a China NNN Agreement or a China Manufacturing Agreement? Usually Both. August 26, 2026 China’s New Overseas Investment Rules: Can Your Chinese Investor Actually Get the Money Out? August 24, 2026 International IP Protection for Startups: What to Protect and Where August 19, 2026 The Documents Are the International Deal August 19, 2026 China Supplier Fraud in Yiwu: Why We Recommended the Police, Not a Lawsuit August 17, 2026 China Trademark Registration: Why U.S. Companies Need More Than a Filing Agent August 10, 2026 Buying Expensive Equipment from China: Seven Questions to Answer Before You Pay August 7, 2026 DDP Shipping Risks: What Boise Cascade’s Guilty Plea Means for U.S. Buyers August 6, 2026 Protecting Your Artwork Internationally: What Artists Need to Do Before the Work Travels August 5, 2026 Your China Employee Signed the Vacation Policy. You Can Still Lose. July 29, 2026 The RedNote Contract Lesson for Companies Doing Business in China Leave a comment Cancel reply