duties of up to 721 percent on Chinese active anode material — the
graphite-based battery component used in virtually every lithium-ion
cell. The anti-dumping duties on top of that reached 93.5 percent. The
trade action is one of the most aggressive U.S. critical-minerals
measures on record, and it is reshaping the global graphite market.¹
a petition to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S.
trade practices in graphite active anode material (AAM). The petition
alleged that AAM from China was being sold in the United States at
prices below fair market value and was benefiting from Chinese
government subsidies.¹
than fair market value. In 2025 the DOC released preliminary results:
anti-dumping duties of 93.50 percent and countervailing duties ranging
from 11.58 percent to 721.03 percent depending on the specific Chinese
exporter.¹ Combined, the duties effectively doubled or more the landed
cost of Chinese AAM for U.S. customers.
subsequent DOC and ITC determinations, and the exact final levels may
change. But the direction of travel is unambiguous: U.S. trade policy
has determined that Chinese AAM pricing is economically unfair and that
domestic and allied suppliers should be protected from that pricing.
percent at the low end to 721.03 percent at the high end — reflects the
producer's records are incomplete or uncooperative with the DOC's
request for data, the DOC applies "adverse facts available" —
effectively, the highest reasonable subsidy estimate. That produces the
inadequate.
the 2025 AAM decision is unusual. Chinese exporters who cooperated fully
with the DOC face meaningful but manageable duties; those who did not
face duties that make continued U.S. sales economically impossible. For
many producers, the decision about how to engage with the DOC
investigation was therefore a commercial life-or-death calculation.
against Chinese AAM, and Korean authorities have been investigating
similar patterns. The U.S. action is the most visible but is not
isolated — it fits a broader pattern of national trade authorities
determining that Chinese graphite pricing warrants protective responses.
levels might suggest. U.S. imports of graphite AAM — both natural and
synthetic — totalled approximately 43,400 tonnes in the first eight
months of 2025, compared with 28,100 tonnes in the same period of 2024.
provides the answer: China remained 55 percent of the inflow despite
duties, Indonesia at 31 percent and South Korea at 14 percent.¹ Some
serve the U.S. market. Others routed material through third-country
processing that qualified for different treatment. And Korean and
firms — grew their U.S.-facing business.
story. U.S. AAM customers pay higher prices than they would have absent
the duties, but they have not lost supply — they have simply
restructured their sourcing to diversify across multiple countries of
origin.
capacity. A Chinese company's new spherical purified graphite (SPG)
facility in Central Java, Indonesia, began production during 2025.
locations provides either proximity to European or North American
markets, or tariff treatment that differs from Chinese-origin
production. Morocco has access to European markets through free-trade
agreements; Malaysia and Indonesia are inside Asian supply chains that
Western customers treat differently from direct Chinese imports.
percent year-on-year, while SPG exports rose 29 percent. The leading
recipients of SPG from China were the Republic of Korea (40 percent),
percent).¹ The flows suggest that Chinese producers are routing
materials through Asian processors for subsequent delivery to U.S. and
sidesteps the direct-import duty.
favourable. The duty structure raises the cost of the dominant incumbent
product, and producers from jurisdictions not subject to the
anti-dumping action — including Brazilian operators Boa Sorte, Santa
they did 18 months ago.
rather than finished AAM, but the strategic pathway is clear: Brazilian
flake concentrate processed into SPG at non-Chinese