On November 21, 2024, Vitro Flat Glass, LLC and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC (“Petitioners”) requested the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on float glass imports from China and Malaysia. The Petitioners argue that the “increasing surge of subsidized and dumped float glass products from China and Malaysia is untenable for the American FGP industry and its plant workers …. [and that] if the situation is not remedied, the threat of continued future material injury is manifest.”
The scope of the petitions covers float glass products (FGP), which are articles of soda-lime-silica glass manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin (or another liquid metal with a density greater than molten glass), cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, and cutting it to appropriate dimensions. While providing additional specifications, the Petitioners note that FGP “may be clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials to affect heat insulation properties, electrical conductivity, sound reduction, strength, durability, color, and/or the transmission of light. Examples of coated float glass products include low emissivity (“Low-E”) architectural glass and frameless mirrors (i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layer) such as mirror stock sheet.” Float glass products can be used in various downstream applications, including: (1) architectural; (2) automotive and non-automotive transportation; (3) electronics; (4) furniture; and (5) interior design applications.
The products subject to the petitions are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010. Products subject to the petitions may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7006.00.4010, 7006.00.4050, and 7007.19.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the petitions is dispositive.
In support of their allegations, the Petitioners reference data showing the volume of imports from the subject countries between October 2023 and September 2024 increased 50.2% from China and 7.7% from Malaysia. The Petitioners allege that the absolute volume of FGP imports from these countries increased by 106% — from 69,077 short tons in 2021 to 142,314 short tons in 2023. In their subsidy allegations, the Petitioners claim that FGP producers in China and Malaysia are eligible for various subsidies, including direct grants, preferential tax benefits, preferential lending and export financing, and the provision of export guarantees. Overall, the petitions state that “available evidence indicates that Chinese FGP producers are benefitting from illegal subsidies and dumping at rates up to 165.11 percent, and Malaysian FGP producers are similarly subsidized and dumping their product in the United States at rates up to 344.43 percent.”
For interested parties, the general issues and injury volume of the petition is available here. The Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration now has 20 days following the filing of the petitions to determine whether to grant the Petitioners’ request for an investigation based upon their claims. Meanwhile, the International Trade Commission has 45 days to issue a preliminary determination on whether there is a reasonable indication that the subject imports are causing or threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry.