US Keeps Anti-Dumping Order on Chinese Melamine After Second Sunset Review

United States Commerce found that ending the anti-dumping order on Chinese melamine would likely bring renewed dumping at margins up to 363.31%, in final results applicable from Oct. 5, 2026.

The U.S. Department of Commerce said on Oct. 5, 2026, that ending its anti-dumping duty order on melamine from China would likely lead to renewed dumping, with likely margins of up to 363.31%¹.

The finding comes from a second sunset review, a check every five years on whether a trade remedy is still needed. Commerce published it in the Federal Register as the final results of an expedited review¹.

In short, Commerce says Chinese melamine would again be sold in the United States below its fair price if the duty ended. The duty order stays in force, and shipments of Chinese melamine still face it at the U.S. border.

What did Commerce decide on Chinese melamine?

The Commerce notice says that revoking the order "would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping"¹. Dumping means selling goods abroad below their normal price. An anti-dumping duty is an extra import tax that makes up the gap between the two prices.

Commerce also had to say how large the dumping would likely be. It found weighted-average dumping margins up to 363.31% would likely prevail if the order ended¹. A dumping margin is the gap between the normal price and the export price.

The notice is applicable from Oct. 5, 2026¹. It was signed on Sept. 29, 2026, by Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations¹.

Why did the melamine review run on a short track?

A sunset review can be full or expedited. This one was expedited, lasting 120 days, because no one spoke for the Chinese side¹. Commerce received no substantive response from any respondent interested party, such as a Chinese maker or exporter¹.

Only one company took part. Cornerstone Chemical Company, a U.S. maker of melamine, filed a notice that it would take part on June 12, 2026¹. It claimed interested-party status as a manufacturer of the same kind of product in the United States¹.

Cornerstone then filed a full and timely written response on July 1, 2026¹. With no answer from the other side, Commerce told the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on July 27, 2026, that no respondent had replied¹. The ITC is the U.S. agency that decides whether imports harm American industry.

How did the melamine review unfold, step by step?

The review followed a fixed path set by U.S. trade law. The main steps, as the Commerce notice describes them, were these:

1. Commerce published the notice that began the second sunset review on June 1, 2026¹.
2. Cornerstone said it would take part, on June 12, 2026¹.
3. Commerce told the ITC on June 22, 2026, that a U.S. maker would take part¹.
4. Cornerstone filed its full written response on July 1, 2026¹.
5. Commerce told the ITC on July 27, 2026, that no Chinese side had replied¹.
6. Commerce issued its final results, signed Sept. 29 and applicable Oct. 5, 2026¹.

The legal basis is section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. law on these reviews¹. Commerce’s full reasoning sits in a separate Issues and Decision Memorandum¹. That memo covers two questions: whether dumping would likely return, and how large the margins would likely be¹.

Which melamine goods does the order cover?

The goods are melamine from China¹. The 2015 order describes melamine as a crystalline powder or granule². It is mostly used to make melamine formaldehyde resins².

The 2015 order sets out the scope, the exact list of goods covered, in these terms²:

• All melamine, whatever its purity, particle size or physical form.
• Blends of melamine with other products, when the parts are mixed but not chemically reacted into a new product. Only the melamine part of such a blend is covered.
• Mixed-source melamine, when Chinese melamine is mixed with melamine from other sources. Only the Chinese part is covered.

The product is listed under subheading 2933.61.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States². Its chemical registry number is CAS 108-78-01². The order says the written description, not the tariff code, decides what is covered². So a shipment under another code can still fall under the order if the goods match the description.

How high were the original melamine duties in 2015?

Commerce published the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders on Dec. 28, 2015². The orders followed a finding by the ITC on Dec. 18, 2015, that U.S. melamine makers were materially injured by the imports².

The 2015 order set one weighted-average dumping margin of 363.31% for the whole of China, called the "PRC-wide entity"². This rate applied to all Chinese exporters not listed by name². The new sunset finding repeats this figure as the likely margin if the order ended¹.

The cash deposit, the money paid to customs when goods enter, was lower in 2015. Commerce cut the 363.31% rate by 9.66%, the part linked to export subsidies already covered by the other order². As a result, the cash deposit rate was 353.65% for the China-wide entity².

How does the separate subsidy order on melamine fit in?

Chinese melamine faces a second duty. A countervailing duty is an extra import tax that offsets government subsidies to foreign makers. Commerce reviewed that order separately and published its own final results on Oct. 2, 2026³.

In that review, Commerce found that ending the subsidy order would likely lead to more subsidies³. It listed net subsidy rates of 154.00% for four named companies³. It set 156.90% for Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., and 154.58% for all other producers³.

The four companies at 154.00% are these³:

• Far-Reaching Chemical Co., Ltd.
• M and A Chemicals Corp China
• Qingdao Unichem International Trade Co., Ltd.
• Zhongyuan Dahua Group Co., Ltd.

These are the same rates set in the 2015 order². Commerce also kept them in the first sunset review in February 2021⁴. Taken together, the two reviews mean that neither duty on Chinese melamine is due to end.

What changes for melamine importers and Chinese makers?

For a U.S. importer of Chinese melamine, the border rules do not change. In the first review, Commerce said that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would keep collecting cash deposits at the rates in effect when goods enter⁵. CBP is the U.S. border agency that collects duties.

The rates matter to costs. A deposit above 350% of value means the duty can cost more than three times the price of the goods. Resin makers that buy Chinese melamine carry that cost.

For Chinese makers and exporters, the result follows their silence. No Chinese company and not the Government of China gave a substantive response in the subsidy review³. No respondent party answered in the dumping review either¹. The only written response Commerce received came from the U.S. maker.

For Cornerstone, the U.S. maker, the result keeps its protection from low-priced Chinese imports¹. It was also the only domestic party in the first review in 2020 and 2021⁵.

What happened in the first melamine sunset review?

The first sunset review began on Nov. 3, 2020⁵. Cornerstone was again the only party to file, and Commerce ran an expedited 120-day review⁵.

Commerce issued its final dumping results on March 9, 2021, and its subsidy results on Feb. 25, 2021⁵. Both found that dumping and subsidies would likely return if the orders ended⁵.

The ITC then found on July 6, 2021, that ending the orders would likely lead to renewed material injury to a U.S. industry⁵. Commerce continued both orders from July 9, 2021⁵. It said it would start the next reviews no later than 30 days before the fifth anniversary of that date⁵. The June 1, 2026, start of this review fits that timetable¹.

What happens next for the melamine order?

The Commerce finding is one half of a sunset review. In the first review, the ITC also had to rule on injury before Commerce could formally continue the orders⁵. Commerce told the ITC about this review in letters of June 22 and July 27, 2026¹.

If the second review follows the same path, Commerce will publish a continuation notice after the ITC rules. In 2021, that notice took effect on the day it was published⁵. The Commerce notice of Oct. 5 does not give a date for the ITC’s decision¹.

The notice also reminds parties to return or destroy confidential business information they received under an administrative protective order, a rule that limits who may see such data¹.

Key points on the melamine anti-dumping order

The table sums up the Commerce sunset finding on Chinese melamine.

Chinese melamine stays under both the anti-dumping and the subsidy orders. The next formal step is the ITC’s ruling on injury, which the Oct. 5 notice does not date.

Sources

1. ↩ Federal Register :: Melamine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/05/2026-20383/melamine-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china-final-results-of-the-expedited-second-sunset-review-of
2. ↩ Federal Register :: Melamine From the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/28/2015-32632/melamine-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china-antidumping-duty-and-countervailing-duty-orders
3. ↩ Federal Register :: Melamine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/02/2026-20259/melamine-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china-final-results-of-the-expedited-second-sunset-review-of
4. ↩ 2021-03901.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-25/pdf/2021-03901.pdf
5. ↩ Federal Register :: Melamine From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/09/2021-14640/melamine-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china-continuation-of-antidumping-and-countervailing-duty