U.S. International Trade Commission
Quartz Surface Products (Remedy)
Testimony of Andrew Eich

Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026, 9:30am
Location: Main Hearing Room, USITC Building

Good morning Chairman, Commissioners, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again.

My name is Andrew Eich, and I am the President and Chief Operating Officer of Cambria Company.

I also want to begin by thanking the Commission for its affirmative determination that the domestic quartz industry has been seriously injured by imports.

When Cambria entered this industry more than two decades ago, we were the only domestic producer. We invested heavily in building demand for quartz surfaces in the United States, including substantial investments in production capacity, marketing, and innovation. Those investments helped create the modern U.S. quartz market and supported the growth of a domestic industry.

What we have been facing over the last five years is not normal competition. It is a sustained surge of imports that has fundamentally distorted the market and severely and negatively impacted domestic producers. As I testified previously, these imports rapidly took market share from Cambria and other domestic producers, even as overall demand continued to grow.

Historically, Cambria experienced steady annual growth in production and sales, often in the range of 15 to 35 percent. That growth justified continued investment in additional capacity. But as imports surged and captured that growth, our volumes declined. We were forced to reduce production from a seven-day schedule to four or five days per week, and our capacity utilization has fallen to approximately 60 percent.

That reduction in utilization has a direct and significant financial impact on our business because of the nature of our cost structure. Quartz manufacturing is highly capital intensive. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in our production facilities, and a substantial portion of our operating costs are fixed. When production levels decline, those fixed costs do not come down and therefore must be spread over a smaller volume of output, which significantly increases our per-unit costs, reduces profitability, and hinders our ability to invest and expand.

This is a critical point for the Commission to consider in the remedy phase. Increasing production is not just about selling more product. It is about restoring the economic viability of domestic manufacturing by allowing fixed costs to be spread across higher volumes. Without that, even modest improvements in demand will not translate into sustainable operations.
In fact, prior to the surge in imports, Cambria had planned a major expansion of our manufacturing capacity. We began investing in additional production lines that would have represented well over $150 million in capital expenditures and the creation of more than 200 new jobs. Those plans were ultimately canceled because imports denied us the opportunity to participate in the growth of the U.S. market. We also halted expansion of our distribution network for the same reason.

The question before the Commission now is whether the remedy will allow companies like Cambria to move forward again. If the Commission recommends strong and effective relief, Cambria is prepared to adjust. First, we would return to full production schedules and maximize utilization of our existing capacity. This alone would significantly improve our cost structure and financial performance by allowing us to spread our fixed costs over higher volumes.  As part of this, we would increase hiring to support the higher utilization of our factory.

Second, we would further invest in our distribution network across the United States to better serve our customers and support increased domestic production.

Third, we would accelerate our innovation program which has been slowed significantly in recent years.  This program would bring new jobs and enhance our offerings to the consumer, enabling us to maintain our competitive edge.

Finally , we would resurrect our growth plans that have since been shelved. This includes the investment in additional production lines at our facility in Minnesota. Our prior growth plans contemplated expanding from six to twelve production lines, representing more than $500 million in total investment and the potential to create over 500 new manufacturing jobs.

These are not speculative ideas. They are concrete plans that were already underway and that we are prepared to revisit if the market conditions are restored.

Before I close my remarks, I do want to address the opposing side’s concerns about affordability if remedies are imposed.  These concerns are grossly overstated and not supported by facts. Quartz countertops represent only a small fraction of the total cost of a home or renovation. Moreover, the tariffs will only apply to the value of the imported materials and not the value of a fully installed countertop.  As a reminder, the cost of a manufactured slab generally represents less than 30% of the actual installed price a consumer pays due to fabrication and installation fees.  A 50-percent tariff imposed on import prices of $7.33 per square foot would result in less than $200 in increased prices to the average American homeowner. Furthermore, our proposed tariff revenue distribution program and tax inducements for consumers would offset some of the increased costs faced by consumers due to the imposition of tariffs.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Commission to recommend a strong and effective remedy that will allow the domestic industry to increase production, restore financial stability, and move forward with the investments necessary to compete successfully in the future.