Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC, leading U.S. producers of silicon metal, have taken legal action against international competitors by filing antidumping and countervailing duty petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission. These petitions specifically target silicon metal imports from Angola, Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand, accusing these countries of engaging in unfair trade practices that severely impact the American manufacturing sector. The companies claim that the imported silicon metals are being sold at prices significantly lower than their fair market value, with dumping margins alleged to be as high as 337.84%.
Silicon metal, a refined material containing at least 85% elemental silicon, plays a pivotal role in the production of various products, especially those related to national security. These include aluminum, silicones, and polysilicon, which are essential for semiconductor, solar, and electronics applications. The petitions underscore the importance of protecting domestic production capabilities in these critical sectors.
Marco Levi, CEO of Ferroglobe PLC, has voiced strong support for the petitions, pointing out that the influx of dumped and subsidized imports has significantly weakened domestic producers by distorting market volumes and pricing. Similarly, Eddie Boardwine, CEO of Mississippi Silicon, has expressed concerns over the devastating effects of these import practices on the domestic industry, despite the ability of American producers to compete on a global scale.
The legal filings encompass all forms and sizes of silicon metal that meet certain compositional criteria. The next steps in the process involve the Commerce Department initiating antidumping and countervailing duty investigations by May 14, 2025, followed by a preliminary determination from the International Trade Commission expected by June 9, 2025. The outcome of these petitions could have far-reaching implications, not only for the silicon metal market but also for the broader approach to protecting domestic manufacturing against unfair international trade practices. This case may set important precedents for future trade strategies and industrial policies aimed at safeguarding American industries.
