US Commerce preliminary antidumping duty on unwrought palladium from Russia

Mechanism

Companion case to the countervailing duty investigation on the same product (2026-03-11-us-doc-palladium-russia-cvd-preliminary): Commerce ran parallel antidumping (dumping-margin) and countervailing (subsidy) investigations into Russian unwrought palladium after a July 2025 petition, both against the same "Russia-wide entity" using facts available with adverse inferences because the Russian respondent did not cooperate. The preliminary 132.83% dumping margin (applicable 2026-02-19) triggered suspension of liquidation and a cash-deposit requirement on Russian palladium entries pending the final phase. Commerce's final determination (2026-05-01) adopted the same 132.83% rate unchanged. The case ultimately did not result in a duty order: the USITC's negative injury determination (2026-05-29) means Russian palladium was found to be dumped and subsidized, but not to have injured the US industry, so no order was issued — functionally the inverse outcome of most contemporaneous US trade-remedy actions against Russia-linked goods. Severity is set at 3 (below the CVD companion's 4) reflecting that the trade-flow impact was real but temporary (a ~3-month cash-deposit period, Feb-May 2026) rather than a standing duty.

Downstream implications

• No standing US duty exists on Russian unwrought palladium as a result of

this investigation — importers who posted cash deposits during the suspension-of-liquidation window should have them refunded.

• The 132.83% margin finding (dumping confirmed, just not injurious) still

functions as documentary evidence of below-market Russian palladium pricing, potentially relevant to future trade-remedy petitions or sanctions-designation arguments even without an order in force.

• Because the US is a comparatively small direct importer of Russian

palladium, the negative injury finding is unsurprising and does not materially change the broader post-2022 pattern of Western buyers routing around Russian PGM supply through other channels (sanctions, informal buyer avoidance).

Open questions

• Did any US industry petitioners request a review or appeal of the USITC's

negative injury determination?

• Does the companion CVD investigation's outcome (final determination

2026-05-20) get formally terminated in the same manner, and is that reflected in 2026-03-11-us-doc-palladium-russia-cvd-preliminary's record?