Key highlights
- ITC votes 2-1 negative – combined AD/CVD duties of 160% will now be removed
- AAAMP says China’s graphite industry is “heavily subsidised” but ITC found Chinese AAM is not preventing the establishment of a domestic U.S. industry
- Decision contradicts broader U.S. critical minerals policy direction, including Section 232 price floor negotiations and the Critical Minerals Summit
- Without trade remedies, U.S. battery manufacturers have no incentive to shift away from cheaper Chinese AAM
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has made negative final determinations in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations regarding active anode material (AAM) from China. In a surprise decision, the Commission found that imports of Chinese AAM are not preventing the establishment of a domestic U.S. industry.
Despite the U.S. Department of Commerce issuing final affirmative determinations in February 2026 – finding combined antidumping and countervailing duty margins of 160%, both agencies must reach affirmative findings for duty orders to be issued. Commerce said yes. The ITC said no. The case is dead and these duties will now be removed.
The petition was filed by the American Active Anode Material Producers (AAAMP), a coalition comprising Anovion Technologies, Syrah, NOVONIX, Epsilon Advanced Materials, and SKC.
AAAMP spokesperson Erik Olson called the outcome “disappointing for domestic producers who were seeking trade relief in order to create a more level playing field with their Chinese competitors,” adding that the evidence produced during the investigation made one thing clear: “China’s graphite industry is heavily subsidised and capable of manipulating global markets in ways that make it extraordinarily difficult for domestic producers to compete. That cannot be argued.”
The negative finding is likely to raise serious questions about the viability of nascent domestic AAM producers who were counting on trade relief to create competitive space against heavily subsidised Chinese supply.
The decision runs contrary to the broader policy direction we have seen in recent months. The Trump administration has made critical minerals supply chain security a centrepiece of its trade policy. The Section 232 proclamation in January directed Commerce and USTR to negotiate price floors with allies, the Critical Minerals Summit in February convened 55 countries around a preferential trade zone with reference pricing, and EXIM has been issuing letters of interest to graphite and anode projects at pace. The entire policy architecture is built on the premise that cheap Chinese supply undercuts domestic investment and poses a national security risk.
The ITC has now concluded that Chinese AAM entering the U.S. at dumped and subsidised prices is not preventing the establishment of a domestic industry. Those two positions are difficult to reconcile.
Without trade remedies in place, U.S. battery manufacturers have no incentive to shift procurement away from Chinese AAM, which remains significantly cheaper. The AD/CVD case was one of the few mechanisms that could have altered the cost equation and created a commercial rationale for domestic sourcing. With that now off the table, much of the current policy architecture around U.S. graphite and anode materials risks being built on a foundation that doesn’t hold.
The Commission’s full report (USITC Publication 5719) is expected to be available by April 26, 2026.
