The United States found on Nov. 4, 2026, that Chinese metal lockers would still be dumped if the extra duty ended.<\/p>\n
In a notice published Nov. 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce found dumping of Chinese metal lockers would continue without the duty.<\/p>\n
The ruling is the first five-year check, called a sunset review, of the anti-dumping duty order on these lockers1<\/a><\/sup>. An anti-dumping duty is an extra import tax on goods sold abroad below their normal price.<\/p>\n In short, nothing changes yet at the border. Metal lockers and locker parts from China still face the extra duty, and a second agency must now decide whether the order stays.<\/p>\n Commerce found that ending the order "would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping"1<\/a><\/sup>. In plain words, Chinese makers would probably go back to selling lockers in the United States below their normal price.<\/p>\n Commerce also estimated how deep that price-cutting would be. It said the dumping margins likely to return would reach up to 322.25%<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>. A dumping margin is the gap between the normal price and the export price, shown as a share of the export price.<\/p>\n The notice was signed on Oct. 30, 2026, by Scot Fullerton, Commerce’s acting deputy assistant secretary for anti-dumping and countervailing duty work1<\/a><\/sup>. It was published in the Federal Register, the U.S. government’s daily official journal, and applies from Nov. 4, 2026<\/strong>1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n The review was short because only one side took part. Commerce opened the review on July 2, 2026, under the Tariff Act of 1930, the main U.S. trade remedy law1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Two U.S. locker makers then said they wanted to take part. List Industries, Inc. and Tennsco LLC filed a notice of intent on July 16, 20261<\/a><\/sup>. They claimed a place in the case as makers of lockers in the United States.<\/p>\n On July 31, 2026, the two companies filed a full written response to Commerce1<\/a><\/sup>. No Chinese maker, exporter or importer sent a response. Because of this, Commerce ran an expedited 120-day review<\/strong> instead of a full one1<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n An expedited review means Commerce decides mainly on the record already in front of it. It does not collect new price data from Chinese companies. The 322.25% figure is the same as the highest rate found in the original 2021 case.<\/p>\n The figure traces back to the original investigation. Commerce announced its final findings in that case on June 29, 20212<\/a><\/sup>. It set separate rates for different Chinese companies.<\/p>\n The rates from that 2021 case were:<\/p>\n The adjusted rates are lower because Commerce took away an amount for export subsidies2<\/a><\/sup>. This avoids taxing the same subsidy twice, since a second duty already targets it.<\/p>\n These are the rates set in 2021. Later yearly reviews of the order were also published, including final results in April 20251<\/a><\/sup>. Those reviews can change the rate for a single company, so the rate on a given shipment may differ from the 2021 table.<\/p>\n Yes. Commerce ran a second case at the same time, against Chinese government subsidies2<\/a><\/sup>. The duty from that case is called a countervailing duty. It is an extra import tax that cancels out help a foreign government gives its makers.<\/p>\n In 2021, Commerce set a subsidy rate of 24.66%<\/strong> for Zhejiang Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd. and for all other companies2<\/a><\/sup>. It set 131.51% for a group of Chinese companies that did not answer its questions2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Both orders took effect on Aug. 20, 20213<\/a><\/sup>. Commerce’s new ruling covers only the anti-dumping order1<\/a><\/sup>. The second agency’s review, described below, covers both orders3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n The order covers metal storage lockers, with or without doors, and their parts4<\/a><\/sup>. Each locker must be less than 27 inches wide<\/strong> and less than 27 inches deep4<\/a><\/sup>. In a bank of joined lockers, the width of each single locker counts, not the whole unit.<\/p>\nWhat did Commerce decide on metal lockers?<\/h2>\n
Why was the locker review fast-tracked?<\/h2>\n
Where did the 322.25% figure come from?<\/h2>\n
\n
Is there also an anti-subsidy duty on lockers?<\/h2>\n
Which lockers and parts does the order cover?<\/h2>\n
What the lockers order covers<\/h4>\n