New AD/CVD Petitions: Active Anode Material from China

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)