Dive Brief:
- Numerous packaging and materials associations testified before the United States Trade Representative this week as part of a new round of Section 301 tariff investigations. This probe, launched in March, examines the impact on U.S. manufacturing from 16 countries’ or economies’ production and excess capacity.
- Representatives from the Can Manufacturers Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, Aluminum Association, Association of Plastic Recyclers and American Chemistry Council are among those that testified.
- Generally, the speakers described harm to U.S. manufacturing from the named countries’ anticompetitive policies and supported the idea of tariffs, but flagged the need for USTR to be careful and targeted in its response.
Dive Insight:
The hearings are one of multiple actions that USTR is currently undertaking related to Section 301 tariffs. On Wednesday, USTR also announced it had started to review such tariffs on imports from China that were implemented during the first Trump administration. Section 301 tariffs are separate from the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs implemented over the last year.
The hearings from Tuesday through Friday this week relate to a Section 301 investigation looking into actions by China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan and India, according to a USTR filing in the Federal Register from March.
USTR is evaluating factors including potential supply and demand imbalances, wage suppression policies and market access barriers. It named specific U.S. manufacturing sectors that potentially are affected by excess capacity and production, including aluminum, steel, glass, paper, plastics and food and beverage processing.
“Implementing a Section 301 tariff would help protect and advantage U.S. farmers and food producers, which in turn would mean a stronger U.S. can manufacturing sector and more reason to invest in aluminum and steel production in the United States,” according to written testimony from Can Manufacturers Institute President Scott Breen, who appeared before USTR Thursday.
“CMI estimates roughly 2 billion food cans are imported into the United States each year, and this number has continued to rise even further amid foreign filled food cans having a relatively low tariff cost compared to the Section 232 aluminum and steel tariffs that need to be absorbed in the American metal can value chain,” Breen said, noting that U.S. retailers and institutions are increasingly opting for foreign-filled food cans.
CMI also “urges extreme caution on any additional action related to aluminum and steel used for can manufacturing, particularly non-Chinese sources, since U.S. can manufacturers cannot get enough of this metal in the United States to meet their needs, and they are already under cost pressures from the existing Section 232 aluminum and steel tariffs.”
The Aluminum Association also called for USTR to take targeted, enforceable actions that distinguish between normal market behaviors and foreign government-backed distortions such as subsidies, state ownership and below-market financing.
“The U.S. aluminum industry can compete with anyone in the world — but not with foreign governments,” said President and CEO Charles Johnson during Thursday testimony. “State-driven excess capacity continues to distort markets and disadvantage American manufacturers.”
Similarly, AF&PA called for a careful, evidence-based approach to the matter while supporting USTR’s review.
“Trade policy shapes manufacturing decisions,” said David Ross, AF&PA director of government affairs, who also testified Thursday. “We support a fact‑based review of excess capacity, while avoiding measures that could put U.S. jobs, investment or operations at risk.”
Ross specifically named China as a country of concern for enabling large capacity expansions and exports that do not match market demand. AF&PA also suggested that USTR investigate countries potentially trying to get around trade measures by transshipping goods and materials through other countries that aren’t under scrutiny.
The Association of Plastic Recyclers also named China as a particular country of concern, as well as other Southeast Asian countries including India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
“These countries are not simply competing,” said Steve Alexander, president and CEO of APR, in Thursday testimony. “They are flooding the U.S. market with rapidly increasing volumes at sharply declining prices.”
He cited data indicating imports from India increased more than 1,200% between 2021 and 2025 while prices fell by more than 60%. He also described China’s role in driving global overcapacity in virgin plastics production, which puts pressure on recycled plastic pricing.
Alexander stated that the U.S. recycled PET industry “is at a breaking point,” with seven PET recyclers closing in the last 15 months, and requires intervention. “They closed not because of inefficiency, but because the market was distorted by a wave of low-priced imports that these facilities could not withstand.”
USTR acknowledged this when launching the investigation: “With respect to polyethylene terephthalate (PET), evidence suggests that as China continues to purchase low-cost Russian oil, Chinese chemical companies are creating overcapacity in PET production.”
The American Chemistry Council’s Jason Bernstein, director of international trade and supply chain, testified on Tuesday that excess capacity fueled by unfair trade practices is hurting U.S. plastics production. He urged USTR to address the root causes of excess capacity will preserving U.S. companies’ access to raw materials.
“A value-chain approach will allow trade policy to confront these distortions decisively, while safeguarding access to critical inputs and supporting U.S. reindustrialization, exports and high-paying jobs,” he said.
Post-hearing rebuttals are due within seven days.
