Anti-dumping tariffs on ferrosilicon from Russia and China: real costs for importers 2026

Key data

European importers of ferrosilicon from Russia and China face the continuation of definitive anti-dumping tariffs from 27 July 2026. The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1794 establishes that these duties do not disappear upon expiry of the previous period, but are renewed following a formal review under Article 11.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

The measure is not new in nature, but its renewal has a direct and immediate impact: any company importing ferrosilicon from these two countries will continue to bear an additional tariff cost that, had it been allowed to expire, would have disappeared. For the metallurgical and construction sectors, where ferrosilicon is a critical input in steel and foundry manufacturing, this translates into sustained pressure on margins.

What does this regulation establish?

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1794 is the result of an expiry review ("sunset review"), the procedure by which the European Commission analyzes whether the removal of an anti-dumping duty would cause the reappearance of dumping and harm to the EU industry. The conclusion is affirmative: without the duties, Russian and Chinese ferrosilicon could re-enter the European market at artificially low prices, harming European producers.

The measure is part of the EU's defensive trade policy against dumping practices by third countries. It is not a one-off sanction, but a structural instrument for protecting European industry that is reviewed periodically.

Economic and operational impact

For importers, the impact is direct: additional tariffs on ferrosilicon of Russian and Chinese origin are maintained, which increases the cost of acquiring this input compared to other sources of supply not subject to these duties.

The most relevant operational and economic consequences are:

• Increased supply chain costs: Ferrosilicon is a key input in steel and foundry manufacturing. Its higher import cost is passed downstream in the production chain.
• Pressure on margins in steel and metallurgy: Companies that cannot pass the additional cost to the final price will see their operating margins reduced.
• Incentive to diversify suppliers: The measure pushes importers to seek alternative sources within the EU or in third countries not subject to these anti-dumping duties.
• Impact on the construction sector: Since steel is a structural material in construction, the increase in ferrosilicon costs can indirectly affect construction costs.
• Legal certainty for European industry: European ferrosilicon producers gain competitive certainty by being protected against imports at dumping prices.

Who is affected?

• European importers of ferrosilicon from Russia or China: must continue to pay definitive anti-dumping duties at customs.
• Steel industry: steel manufacturers that use ferrosilicon as an input in their production processes.
• Metallurgical and foundry industry: companies that use ferrosilicon in the production of metal parts and alloys.
• Construction sector: affected indirectly by the increase in steel costs resulting from higher ferrosilicon costs.
• Traders and distributors of steel raw materials: that act as intermediaries in the import and distribution of ferrosilicon in the European market.
• Procurement and supply chain departments of any industrial company that has ferrosilicon in its value chain.

Practical example

Imagine a Spanish steel company that regularly imports ferrosilicon from China for its steel manufacturing process. Before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2026/1794, this company might have expected that, upon expiry of the previous anti-dumping duties, its import costs would be significantly reduced by the disappearance of the additional tariff.

With the renewal of definitive duties, that scenario does not occur: anti-dumping tariffs are maintained and the company must continue to incorporate that additional cost into its cost structure. Faced with this situation, the procurement department has two main options:

1. Maintain the Chinese or Russian supplier assuming the additional tariff cost and evaluating whether it can pass it on to the selling price of the steel produced.
2. Explore alternative suppliers in countries not subject to anti-dumping duties (for example, European producers or from third countries without current measures), comparing the total cost of acquisition including logistics and quality.

This "make or buy" analysis and supplier diversification is exactly the operational decision that this regulation forces companies to make.

What should companies do now?

1. Review current supply contracts with ferrosilicon suppliers of Russian or Chinese origin to quantify the real tariff impact in the coming months.
2. Update import cost calculations including definitive anti-dumping duties in the total cost price (landed cost) of ferrosilicon.
3. Evaluate alternative suppliers within the EU or in third countries not subject to these duties, comparing total cost, quality and delivery times.
4. Review the pricing policy of final products that incorporate ferrosilicon or steel, to assess whether the additional cost can be passed to the customer or must be absorbed in margin.
5. Coordinate with the customs department or customs agent to ensure that the country of origin codes and tariff classification of imported ferrosilicon are correctly managed under the new regulation.
6. Monitor possible future reviews of these anti-dumping duties, as the European Commission may initiate new reviews if market conditions change.

Official source

Consult full regulation on official source

Notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/./legal-content/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L_202601794