South Korea and Vietnam lost ground in the European Union’s steel import market during the first half of 2026, while Indian shipments remained broadly stable. The contrasting performances reflect differences in product demand and supplier positions as tighter EU trade restrictions and carbon reporting requirements reshape purchasing decisions.
According to EUROFER, South Korean steel deliveries to the EU declined 8% year on year, while Vietnamese shipments fell 25%. Indian volumes increased by approximately 1%.
South Korea accounted for 12% of EU finished-steel imports by volume, compared with 7.7% for India. These changes occurred as total finished-steel imports decreased by 3%, with flat steel products proving more resilient than long products.
Product mix influences supplier performance
The different results among Asian exporters highlight the importance of product-level demand. South Korean producers are significant suppliers of higher-specification flat steel, while Indian steelmakers serve a range of flat and long steel markets with different customer bases and emissions profiles.
Vietnamese shipments also encompass different categories of processed and semi-finished materials. Changes in European demand between these product groups can alter national import rankings without necessarily indicating a shift in the underlying competitiveness of individual steelmaking facilities.
For European buyers, comparing suppliers therefore requires more than examining aggregate national shipment figures. Product specifications, end-market demand and the characteristics of individual production facilities all influence commercial performance.
Tighter EU quotas affect landed costs
Trade access represents another factor shaping the outlook for Asian suppliers. An EU steel regulation taking effect in July 2026 reduced annual duty-free import access to approximately 18.3 million tonnes and established a 50% tariff on imports exceeding the applicable allocations.
Historical trade patterns, product classification and quota utilisation can determine whether an importer can secure the required volume at a competitive delivered price. Although the measures apply at EU level, their practical effects differ according to the origin and product composition of individual shipments.
For South Korean, Indian and Vietnamese exporters, access to available quota volumes is therefore an important consideration alongside production costs and demand for their respective product ranges.
CBAM exposure depends on installation-level emissions
The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) adds a separate carbon-cost calculation to the assessment of covered imports. Importers must associate goods with the applicable embedded-emissions values under the mechanism’s rules.
Verified actual emissions data can be commercially valuable when the relevant European Commission default values exceed a plant’s measured performance. However, national origin is not a reliable substitute for installation-specific information: steel producers within South Korea, India and Vietnam may use different production technologies, precursor materials and emissions-accounting boundaries.
The third-quarter 2026 CBAM certificate reference price was €82.32 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. This provides a reference for calculating carbon liabilities, but does not establish a uniform carbon surcharge for each tonne of imported steel.
The final product-level cost depends on the applicable emissions methodology, relevant benchmarks and permitted deductions. Applying a standard carbon premium to national import averages would therefore fail to capture differences between individual products and production facilities.
European buyers balance diversification with compliance costs
Industrial buyers in Germany, Italy and other European manufacturing centres continue to consider supply diversification, particularly where procurement is concentrated in a single country. However, a broader supplier base does not automatically translate into lower purchasing costs once quota availability, carbon liabilities and financing expenses are included.
The first-half trade figures show diverging outcomes among Asian suppliers rather than a uniform shift towards one region. Future competitiveness will depend on the combination of product quality, reliable delivery, tariff-quota access, verifiable emissions data and commercially competitive pricing.
