BRUSSELS, Oct. 22, 2026 – Türkiye and South Korea ranked as the largest individual suppliers of imported flat steel to the European Union in 2025, according to EUROFER data, as European producers face subdued demand, changing trade conditions and the introduction of definitive carbon-border requirements.
The EUROFER European Steel in Figures 2026 report, published on June 3, records approximately 23.1 million tonnes of flat-steel imports in 2025. Türkiye supplied 3.28 million tonnes, representing 14.2% of the total, narrowly ahead of South Korea, which accounted for 3.24 million tonnes, or 14.0%. India ranked next with 2.26 million tonnes, equivalent to 9.8%. Other suppliers included Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, China and Ukraine.
These figures relate to a specific statistical category of flat-steel products and do not represent the distribution of all imports covered by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Steel import statistics require product-level verification
The distinction between trade statistics and regulatory coverage is essential when assessing carbon-related costs. CBAM applies to selected steel classifications listed in Annex I of the legislation, whereas EUROFER’s product categories serve broader steel-market analysis purposes.
A reliable assessment of potential CBAM liabilities must identify the applicable eight-digit Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes for the relevant reporting year. Aggregate flat-steel import volumes and broad product headings can illustrate competitive pressure, but they cannot establish how carbon costs are distributed among individual suppliers or product categories.
EUROFER reported on October 1 that steel imports declined by 5% in the first half of 2026, following an exceptional increase in shipments towards the end of 2025. Its outlook also forecast apparent steel-consumption growth of just 0.1% in 2026, while EU steel exports fell by 20% in the first half of the year.
The resulting changes in trade flows make supplier rankings sensitive to the comparison period and the precise products included in the calculation.
Late-2025 stockpiling complicates the interpretation of import trends
The increase in steel shipments towards the end of 2025 may partly reflect stockpiling ahead of the definitive CBAM phase, which began on January 1, 2026. However, developments in trade safeguards, tariffs and international steel prices also influenced purchasing decisions.
During 2026, subdued manufacturing demand, freight costs, foreign-exchange movements and inventory liquidation may have contributed to lower import volumes. Establishing that CBAM directly caused the reported 5% first-half decline would require shipment-level evidence capable of separating these factors.
The latest available trade-data reference cited in the source is the Eurostat Comext dataset updated on October 16, 2026. Eurostat’s general merchandise release published that day covered August 2026 and reported total extra-EU imports of €228.0 billion, an increase of 18.2% year on year.
That aggregate figure does not provide a comparable breakdown of steel imports by CN8 classification and country of origin. Consequently, it cannot independently establish country-by-country CBAM steel market shares for August 2026.
Comparable customs data are needed to establish supplier rankings
A defensible comparison would require import volumes in tonnes, customs values in euros and implied unit values in euros per tonne for each relevant CN8 code and trading partner. The analysis would cover August 2026, July 2026 and August 2025, alongside January-to-August comparisons where complete data are available.
Each country’s share must be calculated against the same extra-EU import denominator for the relevant product and period. Changes in market share should be expressed in percentage points, rather than as percentage growth. Provisional or revised customs records and exemptions based on country of origin also need to be identified explicitly.
Price comparisons require similar care. An increase in the average customs value per tonne may reflect a change in product composition, such as a greater proportion of coated coils relative to basic hot-rolled steel, rather than higher carbon-related costs.
For Türkiye, India, Ukraine and Serbia, production routes and verified installation-level emissions may differ substantially. Their national shares of steel imports therefore cannot be translated directly into uniform carbon-risk assessments.
CBAM certificate prices do not translate directly into costs per tonne of steel
The published Q3 2026 CBAM certificate price of €82.32 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent provides a price reference for calculating potential liabilities when the relevant emissions data and applicable free-allocation adjustments are known.
It cannot be applied uniformly to gross imported steel tonnage. The calculation depends on the covered product, its embedded emissions and the adjustments applicable under the CBAM framework.
Separately, the provisional agreement to raise the invalidation threshold under the EU’s Market Stability Reserve from 400 million to 700 million allowances remains subject to adoption. The proposed change may affect expectations about future carbon-market conditions, but it does not alter the historical country shares recorded in customs data.
Long-steel imports show a different supplier distribution
EU imports of long steel products followed a different pattern in 2025. EUROFER’s figures put this product group at approximately 6.7 million tonnes, with Türkiye supplying around 1.53 million tonnes, or 23.0%, and Ukraine contributing approximately 0.64 million tonnes, or 9.6%.
These figures relate to a separate product group and must not be combined with flat-steel statistics to produce a single supplier ranking without weighting the volumes and confirming the applicable product coverage. The long-steel category also includes classifications and producers that may not correspond precisely to the subset covered by CBAM Annex I.
Price differences in long products can reflect delivery ports, structural-section specifications, reinforcing-bar standards, quality certification and seasonal construction demand. For a European infrastructure project, compliance with technical specifications and delivery schedules may carry more weight than a modest difference in nominal customs unit values.
A supplier may therefore increase its share of imported tonnage in one product category while losing ground in another when measured by customs value. Neither outcome alone establishes which country benefits most from carbon-border policy, because the product mix and commercial requirements also influence purchasing decisions.
European steelmakers continue to face weak domestic demand while foreign suppliers compete to maintain positions established before the definitive CBAM phase. The reliability of installation-level emissions evidence is becoming an additional consideration for buyers, alongside product specifications, pricing and delivery conditions. A meaningful assessment of competitive positions will require comparable CN8-level shipment data rather than conclusions drawn from aggregate trade figures or individual policy announcements.
