by Potential duty rates of more than 300% could impact the cost of these types of materials imported from China or Malaysia
WASHINGTON — Anytime there’s news of a tariff or duty handed down from our capital, it catches the attention of the entire industry. That’s particularly true of tariffs which have held the industry captive since earlier this year, with disruptive, anti-business fits and starts that are already a legacy of President Trump’s second term barely seven months in.
While tariffs are a measure intended to fight trade imbalances and other issues, anti-dumping and countervailing duties are a separate but related issue altogether meant to address unfair pricing or perceived unfair government subsidies respectively from a foreign source country. The most significant case impacting the furniture industry was the early-2005 imposition of duties on Chinese-made wooden bedroom furniture.
It continues to impact the industry today as it largely shifted both wood bedroom and dining furniture from China to places like Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, to name a few.
So when Linda Longo, editor-in-chief of sister publication Lighting News Now, broke the blockbuster story this week about the imposition of duties of more than 300% on float glass and mirrors from China and Malaysia, it sparked interest and even alarm throughout the home furnishings industry.
Of course we’re talking about a home furnishings industry that includes not just lighting manufacturers and importers but also wood furniture resources. These companies also use theses type components in their mix, whether it be glass tops for dining tables, mirrors that are part of bedroom collections, glass shelving or mirrored elements used in display cabinets and curios, plus glass or mirrors used in bookcase units, to name several.
The case stemmed from a petition filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce in November 2024 by domestic manufacturers Vitro Flat Glass LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania. They alleged that the glass industry in the U.S. has been materially injured or threatened with injury in the form of job or financial losses because of unfairly priced imports (addressed by the anti-dumping investigation) and the government subsidization of factories (addressed by the countervailing duty investigation) of float glass products from China and Malaysia.
The ITC determined in January there was a reasonable indication that “a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of float glass products from China and Malaysia that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia.” This resulted in the ITC and the U.S. Department of Commerce continuing their respective investigations of float glass imports from both countries.
As part of its investigation, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued its own determinations in May and July, finding that there was evidence of subsidies and unfair pricing respectively related to this category in both China and Malaysia. Preliminary anti-dumping duties have been set as high as 311.8% for float glass products from China and in the case of one Malaysian supplier, 846.4%. A final determination of these duties is expected within 135 days of the July 15 preliminary ruling, or around Dec. 1.
According to the preliminary ruling, “the scope of this investigation covers float glass products, which are articles of soda-lime-silica glass that are 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. For purposes of the investigation, float glass products have an actual thickness of at least 2.0 mm (0.0787 inches) and an actual surface area of at least 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet).”
It goes on to note that the country of origin of each float glass product “is determined by the location where the soda-lime-silica glass is first manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, regardless of the location of any downstream finishing or fabrication operations.”
For more details of the scope, click here.
The good news for importers is that this ruling would not impact bedroom pieces featuring these products that already face a duty on wooden bedroom furniture made in China. Of course, most of that product, along with much dining furniture, has shifted to Vietnam.
Sources also noted that it also does not likely impact finished furniture products that contain glass or mirrored elements as a component.
Home News Now also checked in with Sam McClure, director of compliance and customs services at CV International, to get an understanding of how the duties will impact furniture.
He said that the two cases “primarily apply to imports of the glass only with a few assemblies such as certain mirrors and shower doors also included.”
He added that it does not appear to likely apply to products entered under Chapter 94, which includes fully finished and completed products such as furniture (case goods and upholstery) and bedding, for example.
However, he said where it could be an issue is if a glass top is “entered separately from the base. In this case, the glass top is not classified as a furniture part but as glass in Chapter 70.”
Another issue not entirely known at this stage is the degree to which officials will police the transhipping of products covered under the scope from China or Malaysia to another country in order such as Vietnam to circumvent the duties.
“Circumvention is a hot topic, always was, but even more so with an ADD/CVD case,” McClure said, noting that most LED mirrors fall under the scope of this case. “Anything under the ACC/CVD case which is shipped to a third country will need to maintain the correct country of origin and producer information. Again, it only applies to goods under the scope of the case.”
Thus, potentially at risk would be domestic case goods manufacturers that buy these products/components from overseas and use them in their finished product mix. In this case, the goal would be to shift business to domestic resources, including the petitioners in this case, along with other U.S. producers that have also been impacted by unfairly priced imports.
But this has two implications for domestic wood furniture manufacturers and the domestic glass industry. One, it could raise the price of materials for those companies based on the cost of the imported versus domestic components. Or it could shift the purchase of these materials to other countries outside China and Malaysia.
As everyone in the industry knows, even domestic producers rely on a global supply chain that produces materials at the most competitive prices. It’s a reality the government may not be publicizing, but certainly one that has been clear to furniture and other industries for many years.
