US Commerce preliminary countervailing duty on silicon metal from Laos, Australia, Norway, Thailand

Mechanism

Countervailing-duty investigation into silicon metal (all forms and sizes, 85.00%-99.99% silicon by weight, HTSUS 2804.69.1000/2804.69.5000; semiconductor-grade silicon excluded) from Angola, Australia, Laos, Norway, and Thailand, initiated 2025-05-21 following an April 2025 petition by Ferroglobe USA, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC — the two identified US domestic producers. Commerce postponed the original preliminary-determination deadline once (from an earlier date to September 22, 2025) and published four parallel preliminary affirmative CVD determinations on 2025-09-26, one each for Laos ([C-553-002]), Australia, Norway ([C-403-807]), and Thailand.

For Laos, Commerce found the sole mandatory respondent, Lao Silicon Co., Ltd., did not act to the best of its ability to respond to information requests and applied adverse facts available (AFA), yielding a 240.00% ad valorem subsidy rate for both Lao Silicon and the all-others rate — an unusually punitive figure driven entirely by non-cooperation rather than a calculated subsidy benefit. CBP was directed to suspend liquidation and collect cash deposits at that rate on Laos-origin entries from the date of Federal Register publication onward. The final CVD determination is aligned with the companion antidumping (less-than-fair-value) investigation on the same product, per a request from the petitioners.

Downstream implications

• US importers of Laos-origin silicon metal face a 240% cash-deposit

requirement effective 2025-09-26 — functionally a prohibitive duty that will redirect sourcing toward China (still the dominant global supplier, outside the scope of this case), Brazil, or the domestic Ferroglobe/ Mississippi Silicon producers who petitioned for the relief.

• Parallel affirmative CVD findings against Australia, Norway, and Thailand

the same day signal Commerce is treating silicon metal as a multi-origin circumvention/overcapacity problem rather than a single-country dumping case — watch for a similar AFA-driven punitive rate if any of those respondents also declined to cooperate.

• Silicon metal is a upstream input for aluminum alloying, polysilicon/solar

wafer production, and silicone chemicals — a sustained multi-origin CVD/AD regime tightens US industrial input costs across those downstream sectors.

Open questions

• What were the specific preliminary subsidy rates set for Australia,

Norway, and Thailand respondents (not disclosed in the excerpt reviewed)?

• Did the final CVD determination (aligned with the companion AD case,

originally targeted for around December 2025) confirm or revise the 240% Laos rate?

• Did the USITC reach an affirmative injury finding sufficient to support a

standing CVD order, and on what date did that order publish?