China-to-US Plastic Tableware Imports: Top 10 States and a 12-Month Buyer Analysis

Use China-to-US plastic tableware import data to screen distribution questions, not to estimate local restaurant demand: our calculation from U.S. Census Bureau files totals $2.350 billion for August 2025–July 2026, with California representing 36.02% of reported destination value. The filter is HS 392410, origin China, and general imports; it does not isolate disposable PP food containers. Census monthly data files [1]

For an importer or foodservice distributor, the useful next question is where the proposed stock will actually be received, held and sold. This guide preserves the original article’s state-ranking purpose while separating observed customs statistics from purchasing assumptions. It includes the refreshed ranking, a monthly series, a check of the earlier period and a practical way to turn the findings into a sourcing brief.

What does this dataset actually measure?

HS 392410 covers plastic tableware and kitchenware. The USITC classification includes several product groups, not a dedicated disposable PP takeaway-container category. Treat this as a broader category indicator. A specific shipment’s classification must be established from its actual goods; this article is not a classification ruling or a tariff quotation. USITC: 3924.10 classification [2]

The origin filter uses Census country code 5700 for China. Hong Kong and Taiwan have separate country codes and are not combined with that selection here. Keeping the country filter visible matters when a sourcing team compares this article with a workbook labelled simply “Asia imports.” Those are different populations and should not silently share a denominator. Census Schedule C country codes [3]

We use general-import value, not imports for consumption. Census distinguishes arrivals, including goods entering bonded warehouses or foreign-trade zones, from goods that have cleared into consumption channels. Customs value generally excludes import duties, international freight and insurance. It is therefore not the delivered cost that a foodservice buyer would pay. Census: coverage and customs valuation [4]

These distinctions change the purchasing question. A buyer comparing suppliers needs a consistent product, commercial unit and delivery basis. The statistical total cannot tell that buyer whether a quoted lid is included, which configuration was tested or what a particular warehouse will charge. Use the trade series to organise investigation, then replace broad assumptions with the actual information required for the order.

Which states have the highest reported destination values?

For August 2025 through July 2026, the ten highest values among the fifty states are shown below. Their combined value is $1,855,870,986, or 78.98% of the $2,349,713,573 total across all reported destination codes in the selected files. These are our aggregations of Census records, not an agency-published ranking of food-container buyers. 2025 historical files and 2026 files [5]

The denominator includes Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and unidentified destination code XX where reported. Their respective selected totals are $6,961,817, $15,737, $70,546 and $51,897. They are disclosed separately rather than presented as additional states in the ranking. Percentages use unrounded dollar values; adding the displayed rounded percentages can produce a small rounding difference.

California has the highest reported destination value in this filtered series. That finding does not establish the largest end-user food-container market. Census warns that an import destination can be an intermediary, storage or distribution point rather than the final place of use. The data do not track subsequent interstate movements. Census: State Import Data FAQ [6]

An operationally useful reading is therefore to ask what distribution arrangement sits behind a proposed location. Is the buyer supplying one local restaurant group, several regional warehouses or a national resale network? Which location receives the import and which locations consume the stock? Ask those questions before translating the state ranking into a warehouse decision. The ranking alone cannot choose the answer.

A smaller reported state total should not automatically remove a qualified buyer from a sourcing plan. That buyer may purchase through an out-of-state distributor or receive products through a different logistics arrangement. Conversely, a large reported total is not proof of a large number of accessible customers. Keep commercial account qualification separate from the geography of declared imports.

What changed across the selected twelve months?

The selected monthly values range from $162.806 million in April 2026 to $220.916 million in June 2026. The twelve-month mean is $195.809 million. July 2026 is $216.109 million, compared with $209.892 million in August 2025: a first-to-last increase of 2.96%, not a year-over-year comparison. The table retains every month rather than using only favourable endpoints. Census source files and periods [1], [5]

A straight-line least-squares fit through these monthly values has a slope of approximately +$1.82 million per month. This is a descriptive calculation, not a forecast, a measure of statistical significance or proof of a steady increase. The monthly values visibly rise and fall. A purchasing team should not turn the fitted line into a shipment commitment without its own order and inventory evidence.

The earlier article covered July 2025–June 2026. Recalculating that same period produces $2,376,805,518, California at $845,574,665 / 35.58%, and the top ten at 78.60%. Those results support the earlier rounded figures. Its first-to-last value change was −9.16%, and its fitted slope approximately −$0.93 million per month. The old figures are not fabricated merely because a refreshed window tells a different descriptive story.

The two windows overlap for eleven months. Moving the boundary removes July 2025’s $243,201,288 and adds July 2026’s $216,109,343, reducing the rolling total by exactly $27,091,945. At the same time, the first month used for the new endpoint comparison changes. This explains how a lower rolling total can coexist with a positive first-to-last change in the new window. Neither comparison proves what caused the movement.

For planning, use this as a reason to keep several views together: the full monthly sequence, the rolling total and the dates behind each comparison. Do not choose whichever percentage best supports a sales message. If a procurement decision depends on a particular season, investigate comparable seasons and actual replenishment records rather than calling one boundary-sensitive slope a persistent market trend.

Can shipping weight reveal how many containers were imported?

The selected air-plus-vessel shipping weights sum to 1,806,397,126 kg for August 2025–July 2026. These are recorded gross shipping weights, including packaging such as wrapping and boxes, with substantial outer cargo containers excluded under the Census definition. They are not net resin weight or counts of finished food containers; the transportation coverage is also narrower than an all-methods value measure. Census: shipping weight and transportation coverage [4]

Do not divide that total by the advertised weight of one takeaway bowl to estimate units. The selected commodity contains different articles and configurations, and the weight measure includes more than the product itself. Similarly, dividing total general-import value by this shipping weight does not produce a reliable PP-container price. The numerator and denominator do not establish a consistent product basket or a matched quotation basis.

For an actual purchase, request item-level net weight, carton gross weight, pieces per carton and the full packed dimensions for the proposed configuration. Keep base and lid references connected to those figures. That order-specific information can support a logistics calculation. The broad trade series cannot substitute for it, even when the resulting arithmetic looks precise.

How was the analysis checked?

The analysis uses thirteen retained official monthly ZIP files, covering July 2025–July 2026, with recorded source links and file hashes. This is a fixed historical comparison, not the latest available period: the current index also listed August 2026 when checked October 7, 2026. Each twelve-month window contains 644 reported geography-month rows after filtering commodity 392410 and country 5700. There are no duplicate selected geography-month keys. January 2026 lacks selected rows for North Dakota, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and XX; absent rows were not converted into invented observations. Census: State Imports HS6 record layout [7]

The calculation reads monthly general-import value and the separate air and vessel shipping-weight fields. It does not add the containerized-vessel subset on top of vessel weight. State shares equal each state’s summed value divided by the total value of all reported destination codes in the selected window. Ranking excludes the non-state codes while retaining their values in that clearly labelled denominator.

Two separately implemented readers reproduced the totals, monthly values, weights, ranks and fitted slopes from the retained files. A further check compared the selected twelve-month total with December 2025 cumulative value minus July 2025 cumulative value plus July 2026 cumulative value. Both paths produced $2,349,713,573, with a difference of $0. These are calculation checks against one underlying source, not independent confirmation that every import declaration is accurate.

The methodology still has limits. Census describes reporting and other nonsampling errors, and published files can be revised. Record the download date as well as the observation period when reusing the analysis. A later refresh should rerun all totals, percentages and charts from one documented file collection, not paste a new month beside figures calculated from a different set. Census: State Data Series limitations [8]

How should an importer turn the findings into a buying brief?

Start with a distribution question narrow enough to answer. For example, decide whether you are evaluating one receiving warehouse or comparing two potential delivery arrangements. Write down the intended service area, customer type and replenishment responsibility. This makes it possible to see which part of the trade evidence is relevant and which part still needs information from a carrier, warehouse, distributor or supplier.

Next, define the product configuration. Specify the base and lid, commercial unit, material requirement, nominal capacity, dimensions and intended food use. State whether printed decoration or separate accessories are included. A generic request for “containers for the California market” leaves too many variables open for a meaningful comparison, regardless of the precision of the import statistics.

Then collect costs on the same basis. Identify whether a quote covers a base, a lid or a complete set; retain the currency, quantity, delivery term and named place. List which freight, clearance, handling and domestic-delivery items are included, excluded or still unknown. Do not silently treat the customs value measure in this article as the complete landed cost of your own order.

Use the following as a clearly hypothetical arithmetic check, not a JR DELIPACK offer or a market benchmark. Assume a distributor needs 20,000 complete sets, with 500 sets per carton. The order requires 40 cartons. If an illustrative quotation is $24 per carton, the quoted product subtotal is $960, or $0.048 per set, before any separately excluded charges. These assumptions demonstrate unit alignment; they say nothing about a current supplier price.

Now test a quoting ambiguity. If another quotation uses the same dollar amount per carton but contains bases only, it is not automatically comparable with the complete-set example. The missing lids still need their own price and packing information. The correct response is to reconcile the item scope, not to declare the lower-looking line the better purchase. Keep unresolved terms visible until both quotations describe the same goods and delivery scope.

Finally, connect the order to evidence. Ask which records cover the exact configuration and intended use, and identify who will review any open question. Keep a versioned specification, a clear quotation comparison and a receiving checklist together. This is a suggested procurement workflow derived from the limits of the dataset, not a claim that trade statistics prove product performance or compliance.

What should the receiving and review checklist contain?

• Identity: supplier reference, selected base and lid, drawing or specification revision, and any permitted substitution. A photograph can help recognise a model but should not replace the written configuration.
• Quantity: ordered sets or pieces, cartons, pieces per carton and whether lids travel in separate cartons. Reconcile the receiving count to the purchase order using the same unit before discussing a shortage.
• Use conditions: the intended food, filling, storage and handling sequence. Keep unconfirmed conditions as questions for review rather than adopting a temperature or reuse claim from a different product.
• Documents: the applicable record references, their scope and the responsible review decision. A familiar logo or a general supplier statement does not establish that a specific order is covered.
• Exceptions: damaged packs, quantity discrepancies, a changed lid or missing information, with the affected lot and action recorded. Separate an administrative check from a decision to release the goods for use.

This checklist makes the trade article useful without overstating its role. The data can tell the team which distribution assumptions deserve attention; the order record determines what is actually being bought. Save both, but avoid allowing a national category total to stand in for the product-level evidence required by the buyer’s operation.

How does JR DELIPACK fit into the sourcing process?

JR DELIPACK supplies PP, PLA and paper-based foodservice packaging with manufacturing support. Use the product overview to identify a suitable family, the distributor and importer guidance to organise your sourcing brief, the factory and quality information to understand the evidence-review route, and the contact page to send the model, quantity, destination and intended use. This trade analysis does not establish certification, a customer result or a guaranteed commercial opportunity.

Frequently asked questions

Does California’s share mean that it consumes that share of China’s plastic food containers?

No. The percentage describes reported destination value within the selected broader category and period. It is not a consumption share. Keep the destination finding separate from any claim about local restaurants, residents or ultimate users, and investigate the relevant distribution arrangement before making a commercial decision.

Are the figures specific to polypropylene takeaway containers?

No. The selected six-digit classification does not isolate that product and material combination. Use the analysis as category context, then obtain the actual product description and classification advice for a shipment. Do not describe the total as a measured PP-container market size.

Why do the new and old trend descriptions differ?

They use different twelve-month boundaries. Replacing the earliest month changes both the rolling total and the starting point of the endpoint comparison. The historical figures have been recalculated, not erased. Compare the dates and full monthly sequence before interpreting either fitted line as a purchasing signal.

Can the top-ten ranking identify companies to contact?

Not by itself. The aggregate records used here contain geography and trade measures, not a verified list of buyers or their purchasing intentions. Finding and qualifying a potential account is a separate research task. A state total cannot establish that a particular business imports the selected goods.

Can a buyer calculate a container price from value divided by weight?

That calculation would not provide a comparable item price for this dataset. Products and configurations vary, and the reported shipping weight is gross rather than a count of saleable sets. Request a configuration-specific quotation with a clear unit, packing specification and delivery basis instead.

What information should we send before requesting a packaging quotation?

Send the selected model or required dimensions, base-and-lid combination, material, quantity, commercial unit, destination and intended use. Identify any unresolved condition that matters to your application. Ask the supplier to distinguish included items from exclusions so that the eventual comparison is based on the same scope.

References

1. U.S. Census Bureau, Data Products: State Imports HS6. Index checked October 7, 2026; August 2026 was also listed. This article analyses a fixed period ending July 2026, not the newest listed month. Back.
2. U.S. International Trade Commission, HTS 3924.10; the official classification response was read October 7, 2026. Classification scope only; this article does not quote duty rates. Back.
3. U.S. Census Bureau, Schedule C country codes. China 5700; other territories are not merged into this filter. Back.
4. U.S. Census Bureau, Guide to the International Trade Statistical Program. General imports, customs valuation, shipping weight and transportation coverage. Back.
5. U.S. Census Bureau, historical State Imports HS6 files and current data products. Selected July 2025–July 2026 ZIPs, including the July 2026 source file. Calculations and rankings are JR DELIPACK’s analysis of those records, not Census endorsements. Back.
6. U.S. Census Bureau, State Import Data FAQ, last modified July 12, 2011. Destination limitations; read alongside the current program guide. Back.
7. U.S. Census Bureau, State Imports HS6 record layout. Source field definitions and positions. Back.
8. U.S. Census Bureau, State Data Series, last modified July 12, 2011. Definitions and nonsampling limitations. Back.

Analysis checked October 7, 2026. Values are nominal U.S. dollars; displayed percentages are rounded. Statistical context is not legal, customs-classification or product-compliance advice.