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.<\/p>\n
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<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n 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<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The Commerce notice says that revoking the order "would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping"1<\/a><\/sup>. Dumping means selling goods abroad below their normal price. An anti-dumping duty<\/strong> is an extra import tax that makes up the gap between the two prices.<\/p>\n Commerce also had to say how large the dumping would likely be. It found weighted-average dumping margins up to 363.31%<\/strong> would likely prevail if the order ended1<\/a><\/sup>. A dumping margin is the gap between the normal price and the export price.<\/p>\n The notice is applicable from Oct. 5, 2026<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>. It was signed on Sept. 29, 2026, by Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n A sunset review can be full or expedited. This one was expedited, lasting 120 days<\/strong>, because no one spoke for the Chinese side1<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce received no substantive response from any respondent interested party, such as a Chinese maker or exporter1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n 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<\/a><\/sup>. It claimed interested-party status as a manufacturer of the same kind of product in the United States1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Cornerstone then filed a full and timely written response on July 1, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. 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<\/a><\/sup>. The ITC is the U.S. agency that decides whether imports harm American industry.<\/p>\n The review followed a fixed path set by U.S. trade law. The main steps, as the Commerce notice describes them, were these:<\/p>\n The legal basis is section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. law on these reviews1<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce’s full reasoning sits in a separate Issues and Decision Memorandum1<\/a><\/sup>. That memo covers two questions: whether dumping would likely return, and how large the margins would likely be1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n The goods are melamine from China<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>. The 2015 order describes melamine as a crystalline powder or granule2<\/a><\/sup>. It is mostly used to make melamine formaldehyde resins2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n The 2015 order sets out the scope, the exact list of goods covered, in these terms2<\/a><\/sup>:<\/p>\n The product is listed under subheading 2933.61.0000<\/strong> of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States2<\/a><\/sup>. Its chemical registry number is CAS 108-78-012<\/a><\/sup>. The order says the written description, not the tariff code, decides what is covered2<\/a><\/sup>. So a shipment under another code can still fall under the order if the goods match the description.<\/p>\n Commerce published the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders on Dec. 28, 20152<\/a><\/sup>. The orders followed a finding by the ITC on Dec. 18, 2015, that U.S. melamine makers were materially injured by the imports2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n The 2015 order set one weighted-average dumping margin of 363.31%<\/strong> for the whole of China, called the "PRC-wide entity"2<\/a><\/sup>. This rate applied to all Chinese exporters not listed by name2<\/a><\/sup>. The new sunset finding repeats this figure as the likely margin if the order ended1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n 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<\/a><\/sup>. As a result, the cash deposit rate was 353.65%<\/strong> for the China-wide entity2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Chinese melamine faces a second duty. A countervailing duty<\/strong> 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<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\nWhat did Commerce decide on Chinese melamine?<\/h2>\n
Why did the melamine review run on a short track?<\/h2>\n
How did the melamine review unfold, step by step?<\/h2>\n
\n
The second melamine sunset review<\/h4>\n
Which melamine goods does the order cover?<\/h2>\n
\n
How high were the original melamine duties in 2015?<\/h2>\n
China-wide anti-dumping rates set in 2015, %<\/h4>\n
How does the separate subsidy order on melamine fit in?<\/h2>\n
The two melamine sunset reviews of 2026<\/h4>\n