European steel import flows in the first half of 2026 show a clear divergence between established suppliers and two fast-growing origins, as carbon pricing and trade restrictions intersect with weak demand. EUROFER data indicate that total EU steel imports fell 5% year on year to about 34 million tonnes, while finished steel deliveries declined by 3%. The overall contraction nevertheless masked sharper country-level shifts that are relevant for how importers manage both tariff access and CBAM-related obligations.
Indonesia increased deliveries to the EU by 70% and China raised shipments by 40%, gaining share as other suppliers reduced volumes. Imports from Türkiye fell 16% and deliveries from South Korea dropped 8%, changing the competitive balance across origins. Türkiye remained the largest finished-steel supplier with 15.7% of import volumes, followed by China at 12.3%, South Korea at 12%, Indonesia at 8.8%, and India at 7.7%.
EU procurement decisions were not driven by CBAM alone, according to EUROFER’s assessment of the timing of purchases. Importers brought forward orders ahead of the mechanism’s financial phase, which began on 1 January 2026, while inventory movements and safeguard quota openings also influenced procurement patterns. This matters for interpreting any apparent “gain share” because shipment timing can reflect short-term logistics and quota availability rather than a permanent change in competitiveness.
From July 2026, a separate EU steel regulation tightened tariff-free access and raised the cost of out-of-quota imports. The measure restricted tariff-free import access to roughly 18.3 million tonnes annually and increased the out-of-quota tariff to 50%. These changes affect landed prices independently of carbon liabilities under CBAM, adding a trade-policy layer to the emissions compliance cost base faced by covered products.
As a result, import competitiveness cannot be evaluated only by looking at volume changes in isolation. Quota availability and applicable tariffs influence landed costs alongside emissions-related obligations attached to covered goods. For buyers, the practical question is whether shipments can enter within available tariff quotas while meeting CBAM documentation requirements that must withstand verification.
The product mix further complicates comparisons between supplying countries, especially when finished-steel shares are inferred from broad customs categories. Imports of hot-rolled wide strip rose 14% in the first six months of 2026, while deliveries of cold-rolled sheet, sections and several long steel products declined. A supplier can therefore expand its position in finished-steel totals by increasing flat steel volumes even as it loses ground in construction-linked categories.
EU-wide HS72 statistics should not be treated as directly equivalent to EUROFER’s finished-product import volumes when assessing market shares. Aggregate figures can conceal differences between segments that are gaining imports and those experiencing falling demand, which affects how origin-level performance translates into producer-level competitiveness under both trade restrictions and carbon pricing.
CBAM exposure adds another dimension because emissions calculations vary across products and origins. The European Commission’s default emissions factors differ by product and country, while producers can replace defaults with verified installation-specific emissions data. This creates scope for differences in compliance outcomes even when shipment volumes rise or fall for reasons linked to quotas or demand conditions.
The certificate reference price also moved during 2026, influencing how costs are benchmarked over time. The third-quarter reference price reached €82.32 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, up from €75.28 in the second quarter. Even so, the reference price alone does not determine the final CBAM cost per tonne of imported steel because benchmark deductions and carbon prices already paid in the country of production affect the amount due.
For importers, compliance planning extends beyond emissions factors to include verification readiness and financing conditions tied to inventory cycles. Buyers must assess whether shipments fit within available tariff quotas, whether accompanying emissions documentation can withstand verification, and whether purchase prices compensate for both trade-related and carbon-related risks. For banks financing steel inventories, delivery delays and uncertainty over emissions data can be as consequential as any apparent price advantage versus domestically produced material.
Looking ahead to the second half of 2026, developments will indicate whether China’s and Indonesia’s gains persist once year-end inventory effects unwind and tighter import quotas take effect from July onward. Sustained growth would suggest that their changing competitive position extends beyond purchases brought forward ahead of CBAM’s financial phase starting on 1 January 2026. In parallel, product-level shifts such as hot-rolled wide strip growth versus declines in cold-rolled sheet and long products will remain central to interpreting how origin performance maps onto finished-steel market share.
Taken together, the first-half data point to a market being reshaped through multiple channels: weak overall demand reducing total imports; quota openings and pre-financial-phase buying affecting timing; July regulatory tightening raising out-of-quota costs; and CBAM compliance costs varying with product-specific emissions factors, verified data availability, and reference-price movements during 2026.