Safeguard Tariffs Face Federal Court Challenge
NEW YORK – The “Safeguard” tariffs on imported engineered stone are being challenged here at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).
Five companies – including slab manufacturers, major importers, and a large fabricator – filed a complaint against the federal government Aug. 21 to declare the new tariffs unlawful and refund any duties collected.
The action comes as the first test for the quota/rate tariffs set by President Donald Trump on July 31 and implemented on Aug. 15 for all imported man-made surfaces with silica as the largest component by weight.
The suit alleges that the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) committed several procedural errors in its consideration of a petition by the Quartz Manufacturers Alliance of America (QMAA), a coalition of U.S. based slab producers, seeking relief through the federal Safeguard-tariff process.
The USITC is a defendant in the filing, along with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott; and, as the overseers of CBP, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
The companies filing the action are:
- U.S. slab producer Elite Quartz Manufacturing;
- importers Arizona Tile LLC and M S International Inc.;
- Caesarstone USA Inc.; and
- fabricator Wiesenbaker Builder Services Inc.
Much of the complaint centers around how the USITC defined the concept of manufacturer. The suit claims that there are two types – slab manufacturers molding and compressing a raw material, and fabricator manufacturers to cut, edge, polish and finish to product “to meet the specifications required for installation.”
The USITC chose to acknowledge only slab producers as a manufacturer, which allowed the Safeguard filing by the QMAA, whose members operate most U.S. engineered-stone manufacturing lines. (Elite Quartz Manufacturing is not part of the QMAA.)
The filing notes that more than 1,000 U.S. fabrication businesses submitted opposition to the QMAA petition and claims that including fabricators as manufacturers would show that the QMAA wasn’t “representative of an industry,” which is a requirement for initiating a Safeguard action.
The filing with the CIT also disputes the USITC’s April 1 finding that imports were a “substantial cause of serious injury” for domestic producers from 2020-2024, as noted in the QMAA petition.
In particular, the suit notes that the USITC found U.S. producers recorded operating profits in the 3.9% to 9% range during those four years but were unable to run production lines to carry out a reasonable level of profit and suffered significant overall impairment.
The USITC decision to affirm the QMAA’s petition, according to the lawsuit, “unlawfully found that the domestic industry’s strong financial performance amounts to serious injury.”
The suit also disputes the USITC’s timeline with the QMAA petition, noting that the original filing was on Sept. 15 last year, but that the agency used another petition submission date of Nov. 17, five days after the end of the 43-day shutdown of the federal government.
The USITC, the suit alleges, “arbitrarily decided” on the latter date; had the clock started with the initial September filing, the USITC’s affirmative decision and report to the president would go beyond required federal deadlines under federal trade law.
The suit also claims the USITC, in its April 1 decision, inaccurately noted the 2023 shuttering of the Caesarstone production plant in Richmond Hill, Ga., as part of the serious injury to U.S. producers by the surge of imported surfaces – a contention of the QMAA Safeguard petition.
Documents filed with the lawsuit include a Sept. 22, 2025, letter to USITC Chair Amy A. Karpel from Caesarstone USA CFO Kobi Brenner, stating that the QMAA petition was incorrect concerning imports as a cause of import competition.
“Rather, our decision followed a careful assessment of QSP (quartz-surface product) industry innovations, U.S. challenges accessing unique raw materials we use, and an inability to achieve increased efficiencies,” wrote Brenner, now Caesarstone USA president. “To suggest otherwise is misleading.”
The suit asks for a three-judge panel to consider the case. No dates are set concerning future court action.
