China Xanthan Gum Antidumping Review: Key Rates

Importers of Chinese xanthan gum face substantial potential liability following preliminary margins ranging from 51.82% to 70.21%. The xanthan gum antidumping duty review requires careful exporter identification, entry-level exposure modeling, and liquidation monitoring because preliminary results do not immediately replace existing cash deposit rates.

Preliminary Results and Applicable Antidumping Rates

The U.S. Department of Commerce released preliminary results on October 14, 2026, for the antidumping duty administrative review covering xanthan gum from China. The period of review runs from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, under case A-570-985.

Rates for Deosen Ordos, Fufeng, and Jianlong

Commerce preliminarily calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 70.21% for Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. The Fufeng single entity received a preliminary margin of 51.82%. That entity consists of Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd., also known as Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd., Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd., and Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.

Jianlong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., a non-examined company eligible for a separate rate, received a preliminary rate of 56.20%. Commerce calculated that rate as a weighted average of the two mandatory respondents' margins using publicly available ranged U.S. sales values.

The China-wide entity was not reviewed. Its rate therefore remains 154.07%. Exporters that have not established eligibility for a separate rate generally remain subject to the China-wide rate.

These figures are preliminary. They indicate potential assessment outcomes for entries made during the review period, but they do not immediately change cash deposit rates. New deposit requirements generally become effective only when Commerce publishes final results. Importers and customs brokers should therefore distinguish among the rate deposited at entry, the preliminary review margin, the final cash deposit rate, and the eventual liquidation assessment.

How the Review Affects Importer Duty Exposure

Antidumping duty administrative reviews can create a significant difference between deposits paid at entry and the amount ultimately assessed. Importers of record remain financially exposed to that difference until covered entries liquidate, even when a foreign seller or distributor supplied the merchandise.

Deposits Are Not Final Duty Assessments

Cash deposits collected when merchandise enters the United States are security against the final antidumping duty liability. For reviewed sales, Commerce may calculate importer-specific assessment rates for mandatory respondents. If the final assessment exceeds the deposit amount, CBP may issue an additional duty bill after liquidation instructions are implemented. If the assessment is lower, liquidation may produce a refund, generally with applicable interest.

An importer that deposited 20% on an entry associated with an exporter later assessed near 50% or 70% could face a material additional liability. Conversely, an entry deposited at the 154.07% China-wide rate might have a different outcome if the exporter was properly entitled to a separate rate and the documentation supports that treatment.

Exporter Identity Controls the Analysis

Compliance teams should identify the Chinese exporter associated with each entry, not merely the manufacturer, brand, distributor, or U.S. vendor. For merchandise exported through a non-Chinese intermediary that lacks its own rate, the applicable treatment generally follows the Chinese exporter that supplied the goods.

Exposure models should be built at the entry-line level and should include entered value, exporter name, manufacturer name, deposit rate, deposited amount, entry date, and liquidation status. Trade directors should also reconcile commercial invoices, purchase orders, entry summaries, and supplier declarations. Similar company names, particularly Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical Ltd., must not be treated as interchangeable.

Partial Rescission Does Not Mean a Zero Rate

Commerce partially rescinded the administrative review for several companies. A rescission removes a company from the review for the applicable period, but it does not ordinarily establish a zero antidumping duty rate or eliminate the duty consequences of covered entries.

Companies Covered by the Partial Rescission

The review was rescinded for CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Company Limited following the timely withdrawal of the review request. Commerce also rescinded the review for the following companies because there were no reviewable suspended entries during the period:

• Deosen Biochemical Ltd.
• Langfang Meihua Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
• Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited
• Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.

Entries associated with these rescinded companies are generally assessed at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. Liquidation instructions for these entries are not expected earlier than November 18, 2026, based on the standard 35-day waiting period following publication.

Company Names Must Be Matched Precisely

The distinction between Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd., which received the preliminary 70.21% margin, and Deosen Biochemical Ltd., for which the review was rescinded, is operationally important. Importers should not infer the applicable treatment from a shortened vendor name in an enterprise resource planning system.

Customs brokers should compare the exporter reported on the entry with commercial documents and the legal entity named in the proceeding. Where corporate aliases, related entities, or trading companies appear, the importer should retain evidence supporting the rate used at entry. A review rescission based on no suspended entries can also signal a potential mismatch if an importer believes it entered merchandise from that company during the period.

Compliance Priorities and Procedural Deadlines

Importers, exporters, and other interested parties should use the preliminary stage to validate data and evaluate whether participation is warranted. Waiting for final results can leave too little time to address factual or methodological issues that materially affect liability.

Model Entry-Level Exposure

The first priority is to group period-of-review entries into the correct exporter categories: Deosen Ordos, the Fufeng single entity, Jianlong, a rescinded company, or the China-wide entity. Importers can then compare estimated liability using the preliminary rate against the antidumping deposits already paid.

This model should remain separate from ordinary customs duty, Section 301 duties, merchandise processing fees, and other import charges. The model should also identify unliquidated entries, suspended entries, and entries that may be approaching liquidation deadlines.

Evaluate Participation Before the Deadlines

Case briefs are due approximately November 4, 2026, which is 21 days after publication. Rebuttal briefs are due five days later, approximately November 9, 2026. Hearing requests are due approximately November 13, 2026. Parties should confirm procedural deadlines in Commerce's ACCESS system because filing rules, extensions, and service requirements can affect the operative date.

A case brief should focus on issues supported by the administrative record, such as factual findings, calculation methodology, separate-rate treatment, or ministerial concerns. Rebuttal submissions are generally limited to responding to arguments raised in case briefs.

Address Reimbursement and Liquidation Controls

Importers should ensure that required reimbursement certificates are filed before liquidation. Failure to provide the appropriate certification can generally result in a presumption of reimbursement and the potential doubling of assessed antidumping duties.

Brokers and compliance teams should also establish alerts for final results, CBP liquidation instructions, suspension status changes, and liquidation notices. Deposit instructions and assessment instructions serve different purposes, so both must be monitored independently.

Duty Drawback Treatment for Xanthan Gum Entries

Antidumping and countervailing duties are not eligible for duty drawback. That limitation applies even when the imported xanthan gum is later exported, destroyed under customs supervision, or used to manufacture an exported product.

Ordinary Customs Duties May Remain Eligible

The presence of antidumping duty on an entry does not necessarily disqualify every other duty amount associated with that entry. Ordinary customs duties may still qualify for drawback when the merchandise is exported or destroyed, or when it is used in the manufacture of exported articles, provided the claim satisfies the applicable statutory and documentation requirements.

Drawback calculations should therefore separate antidumping and countervailing duty amounts from potentially recoverable ordinary customs duties. Section 301 duties and other special tariffs require their own eligibility analysis based on the governing drawback rules and claim type.

A reliable data structure should preserve the entry number, line number, classification, country of origin, entered value, ordinary duty, special tariff, antidumping deposit, countervailing deposit, exporter, manufacturer, and relevant case number. Combining these amounts into a single duty field creates a risk that ineligible AD/CVD deposits will be included in a claim or that eligible ordinary duties will be overlooked.

Customs brokers managing drawback for importers should also reconcile post-entry adjustments and liquidation changes. If ordinary duty values change, the drawback calculation may need to reflect the corrected amount, while antidumping assessments must remain excluded.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the October 14 preliminary results change cash deposit rates?

No. The preliminary margins do not immediately replace existing cash deposit rates. Deposit rates generally change when Commerce publishes final results and issues corresponding instructions. The preliminary rates primarily indicate possible assessment outcomes for entries made during the July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025 review period.

What rate applies to Jianlong Biotechnology Co., Ltd.?

Jianlong received a preliminary separate rate of 56.20%. It was not individually examined. Commerce derived the rate from the mandatory respondents' margins using their publicly available ranged U.S. sales values. The rate remains preliminary until the final results are issued.

Does partial rescission mean entries receive a zero rate?

No. Rescission generally means Commerce will not calculate a new review rate for the company for that period. Covered entries are typically liquidated at the cash deposit rate in effect at entry. Importers must verify the precise exporter identity and the rate originally applied.

Can antidumping duties be recovered through duty drawback?

No. Antidumping and countervailing duties are not eligible for drawback. However, ordinary customs duties paid on the same entries may remain eligible if the merchandise is exported, destroyed, or used in qualifying manufacturing activity and all other drawback requirements are satisfied.

Why does the China-wide rate remain 154.07%?

The China-wide entity was not under review, so its existing rate remains unchanged. Chinese exporters that do not establish separate-rate eligibility generally remain part of the China-wide entity. Importers should not apply a respondent-specific or separate rate without documentation connecting the shipment to the qualifying exporter.

How Stable Software Can Help

Separate Eligible Duties From AD/CVD Amounts

Stable Software's DrawbackAI helps U.S. customs brokers provide duty drawback services to importer clients under the broker's own filer code. Brokers can white-label the software while maintaining control of client relationships and filing operations.

For entries involving xanthan gum antidumping duty, disciplined separation of ineligible AD/CVD amounts from potentially recoverable ordinary customs duties is essential. DrawbackAI supports the broker-led drawback process without taking a percentage of the importer's refund. Stable Software charges a flat software license, allowing brokers to scale their drawback practice without revenue-sharing fees tied to claim value.

Resources