A Glimmer of Hope for Molded Pulp Exports to the U.S.: U.S. Court of International Trade Remands 515.40% Antidumping Duty Final Determination on Chinese Paper Plates

According to Dentons, on June 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in the administrative litigation concerning the antidumping investigation into Chinese paper plates, remanding to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) the final antidumping determination and antidumping duty order against Chinese paper plate exporters. The case was handled by Dentons’ International Trade Remedies Team. The ruling was publicly announced on October 9, 2026.

Why Was the Duty Rate as High as 515.40%?

DOC had previously applied total adverse facts available (total AFA) to the responding companies on the grounds that they failed to report factors-of-production data under the product control numbers (CONNUMs) as required, and calculated a dumping margin as high as 515.40% on that basis.

The legal team noted that the core dispute in this case was not a “technical data-reporting issue,” but rather that, before applying facts available and adverse inferences, DOC failed to fully notify the companies, as required by law, of the specific deficiencies in their filings and failed to give them an effective opportunity to correct or explain them. The team built a procedural defense around this issue, arguing that the application of total AFA lacked substantial evidence and was inconsistent with the law.

Court Finds Procedural Defects

After review, the CIT held that DOC failed to fulfill its statutory obligations to notify the companies of deficiencies and provide an opportunity to correct before applying facts available and adverse inferences. Accordingly, it remanded the final determination and the duty order for reconsideration.

Industry Impact: From “Competing on Data” to “Challenging Procedure”

Industry observers noted that the value of this ruling lies not in “winning a case,” but in giving Chinese companies a reusable playbook for procedural defenses. In the past, when facing AFA, companies generally tried to supplement data and contest the substantive duty rate, pinning their chances on the discretion of the investigating authority. This case demonstrates that procedural defects at the “opportunity to correct” stage are themselves a viable ground for challenge.

For categories that rely heavily on the U.S. market, such as paper plates, paper bowls, paper food containers, and molded pulp tableware, the significance is particularly direct: once a 515.40% duty rate is finalized, it effectively closes the market at once; remanding the final determination reopens a crack in a window that had been shut.

Industry insiders offered four points of advice:

First, for paper tableware orders exported to the United States, companies should verify Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification in advance and confirm whether the products fall within the scope of existing antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders or anti-circumvention investigations, including compliance risks associated with third-country transshipment routes.

Second, establish an “investigation response file,” with CONNUM-level records covering raw material procurement, process parameters, and cost allocation, rather than waiting until a case is initiated to fill the gaps.

Third, when alleged “reporting deficiencies” or the application of AFA arise, companies must assert in writing their right to an opportunity to correct during the investigation stage and preserve evidence.

Fourth, do not passively accept an AFA rate as the default outcome; failing to exercise procedural rights is tantamount to waiving them.