Melt and Pour: new documentation requirement for steel imports

What importers need to know since 1 October 2026

A practical analysis of the Steel Regulation (EU) 2026/1384

Since 1 October 2026, importers bringing certain steel products into the EU must declare and provide evidence of the country in which the steel was first melted and cast. If this evidence is missing, customs will refuse entry, regardless of whether the tariff quota is still available. This documentation requirement may disrupt supply chains and alter the customs duty burden for entire product lines.

Summary of key points:

• Steel Regulation (EU) 2026/1384 replaced the previous safeguard measure on 1 July 2026. It reduces the duty-free import quotas by around 47% compared with 2024, to approximately 18.3 million tonnes per year and doubles the tariff on imports outside the quotas to 50%.
• Since 1 October 2026, the “Melt and Pour” country must be declared for every import of goods covered by the Regulation. The primary means of proof is the mill test certificate (MTC), commonly referred to in practice as a works certificate, which specifies the country of melting and the heat number. Other documents will be accepted on their own only until 30 September 2027.
• If the importer cannot provide evidence of the country of melting, the import will be refused, even if the tariff quota is still available. Delays in customs clearance may also result in the goods being released only after the quarterly quota has been exhausted.
• The Commission will take the data into account when allocating quotas from October 2027 onwards and will assess by mid-2028 whether the country of melting should become the decisive criterion. Supply and framework agreements should therefore already specify who is responsible for providing which documents and who bears the risk of customs duties and import refusal.

1. From a safeguard measure to a permanent instrument

Since 2018, the EU has regulated steel imports through a safeguard measure, most recently based on Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159. Under WTO law, safeguard measures are subject to a time limit. The measure expired definitively on 30 June 2026. On 13 April 2026, the Council and Parliament reached agreement on a successor instrument. Regulation (EU) 2026/1384 was published on 24 June 2026 and entered into force the following day; it has applied since 1 July 2026. Unlike the safeguard measure, it is of unlimited duration.

The Regulation establishes a tariff quota system covering 26 product categories, some of which are further divided into subcategories. A total of 18,345,922 tonnes may be imported duty-free each year, approximately 47% less than under the 2024 safeguard measure. The quantities are allocated by country and administered on a quarterly basis; Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1457 governs the allocation for the second half of 2026. Imports outside the quota are subject to a duty of 50% of the value of the goods. By comparison, the duty under the safeguard measure was 25%.

For the allocation to a country-specific quota, non-preferential origin under the Union Customs Code remains decisive, rather than preferential origin under free trade agreements. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are exempt from the quota system. Russia and Belarus are not taken into account when calculating the quotas because imports of steel from these countries are already prohibited.

The new Melt and Pour rule is set out in Article 4. It is intended to make transparent where the imported steel actually originates. The background is the concern that steel from countries whose quotas have been exhausted could be diverted through third countries, where it is merely rolled or otherwise processed, thereby acquiring a new country of origin.

It is not yet possible to determine whether the EU will achieve its stated objective of preventing circumvention. The burden of proof falls primarily on medium-sized importers, whose supply chains often span several stages and countries, whereas vertically integrated groups can generally adapt their documentation comparatively quickly.

2. What “Melt and Pour” means

The Melt and Pour country is the country in which the raw steel or pig iron is first produced in liquid form in a steelmaking or ironmaking furnace and subsequently cast into its first solid form, typically slabs, billets or ingots. This also includes steel produced by remelting scrap in an electric arc furnace. All downstream processing steps, such as hot rolling, cold rolling, drawing, welding and galvanising, are irrelevant for determining the Melt and Pour country. None of these steps changes the Melt and Pour country once it has been established.

The customs framework therefore recognises a third concept of origin alongside non-preferential origin and the country of dispatch. These three concepts may differ: slabs are cast in Indonesia, hot- and cold-rolled in China and finally slit into narrow strips in Vietnam. The Melt and Pour country is Indonesia. Under the rules applicable to Chapter 72, the country of origin is China because slitting alone does not confer a new origin. The goods are dispatched from Vietnam. The importer therefore needs the certificate issued by the Indonesian steel mill, even though two further stages of the supply chain lie between that mill and the importer.

A certificate of origin therefore does not provide sufficient evidence. Export documents that merely identify the country of export likewise do not establish the Melt and Pour country.

3. Scope of application and addressees

The documentation requirement applies to all product categories listed in Annex I to the Steel Regulation, including, for example, the categories covering tubes and hollow profiles (20, 21, 22, 24, 25A, 25B and 26). Whether a particular product falls within the scope of the Regulation can only be determined by comparing its CN code against Annex I. The route by which the goods are supplied is irrelevant.

Finished steel products are currently outside the scope of the Regulation. This may not remain the case: by 30 June 2027, the Commission is required to examine whether the Regulation should be extended to products made of steel or containing a significant proportion of steel. The initial focus is on downstream iron and steel products. For the plant engineering, automotive and mechanical engineering sectors, such an extension would have significant practical implications.

The obligation falls on the importer or declarant who declares the goods for release for free circulation. The importer must state the Melt and Pour country in the customs declaration and substantiate this with verifiable documentation. Manufacturers, traders and downstream processors in third countries have no independent obligation towards the EU customs authorities. This makes matters more difficult for importers, as these entities are often the ones holding the necessary documentation.

The requirement applies to imports from all third countries. Even goods from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are not subject to quotas, must be declared with the Melt and Pour country. Anyone purchasing steel that has already been cleared through customs in the EU is not directly affected. However, they may feel the effects of the rule through prices, longer delivery times and requirements imposed by their own customers.

4. What evidence customs requires

The Commission has specified which documents are sufficient as evidence in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1963, published on 31 August 2026 following approval by the Member States. The primary document is the Mill Test Certificate (MTC), also commonly referred to in practice as a works certificate. It must contain two pieces of information: the country of melting and the heat number, which makes it possible to trace the goods supplied to a specific batch of molten steel. In practice, this will often be an inspection certificate 3.1 in accordance with EN 10204. A document that has traditionally served primarily for technical quality assurance thus becomes a customs document.

If either of these two pieces of information is missing from the certificate, Article 1(2) of the Implementing Regulation permits other documents to be used as supplementary evidence. These include invoices and delivery notes, quality certificates, clauses in fulfilled orders or contracts, long-term supplier declarations, calculation and production documents, customs documents issued by the exporting country, as well as business correspondence and production descriptions. The fact that the Implementing Regulation expressly recognises contractual clauses as means of evidence is also relevant for contract drafting; further details are provided in the section “Contract drafting along the supply chain.”

This facilitation ends on 30 September 2027. Thereafter, the Mill Test Certificate will be indispensable and other documents may only be used to supplement it. Suppliers that have not previously issued such certificates therefore have one year to adapt their processes. Given the complexity of some supply chains, this period is short.

In the customs declaration, the Melt and Pour country is declared using dedicated TARIC document codes (codes in the EU’s Integrated Tariff). Importers should involve their customs representatives at an early stage so that they are aware of which documents are available for each shipment.

5. Consequences of missing evidence

If the importer cannot provide evidence of the Melt and Pour country, the import will be refused. Whether the tariff quota is still available or whether the steel has any connection to Russia is irrelevant.

The economic consequences can be significant. The goods may remain at the border, potentially disrupting production processes and delaying construction projects. As the quotas are administered on a quarterly basis, delays in customs clearance may result in the goods being released only after the quarterly quota has already been exhausted. In that case, a duty of 50% of the value of the goods will be payable. These additional costs may be substantial and their contractual allocation should therefore be clarified in advance.

The Melt and Pour country may become decisive for future quota management. At present, the EU collects the Melt and Pour country solely for statistical purposes; it neither determines which country-specific quota an import is charged against nor overrides non-preferential origin. This is expected to change: from 1 October 2027, the data collected will be used in the allocation of quotas. By 30 June 2028, the Commission must assess whether the Melt and Pour country should serve as the basis for access to the quotas and, where appropriate, submit a legislative proposal. If this model is adopted, steel melted in a country whose quota has been exhausted could trigger the full 50% duty, regardless of where it is subsequently processed.

6. Interplay with sanctions law and CBAM

Since 30 September 2023, Article 3g(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 has prohibited the import of certain iron and steel products manufactured in third countries using Russian steelmaking inputs. Many importers therefore already document the origin of the inputs through mill test certificates. However, the legal bases and the products covered differ: the sanctions apply to the products listed in Annex XVII, whereas the Melt and Pour rule applies to the categories listed in Annex I to the Steel Regulation. Each product line must therefore be checked against both lists.

Because the Melt and Pour country is now stated in the customs declaration, customs authorities can readily cross-check it against the documents held by the importer for sanctions compliance purposes. If a certificate in the sanctions file identifies a different Melt and Pour country from that stated in the customs declaration, the importer faces risks under both regimes.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) under Regulation (EU) 2023/956 is likewise an instrument for pricing the carbon emissions associated with certain imports. It entered its definitive phase on 1 January 2026 and relies on data from manufacturing installations. The relevant information concerns emissions, not the Melt and Pour country. Where verified installation data are unavailable, more costly default values apply. Companies should therefore obtain the information used for all three regimes from the same source and check it for inconsistencies.

7. Contract drafting along the supply chain

The Regulation is addressed to the importer. Whether the importer can actually provide the required evidence, however, is not determined at the border but in the contracts with its suppliers. Existing supply and framework agreements often address mill test certificates exclusively from a technical perspective. For the purposes of the Steel Regulation, this will generally not be sufficient.

The starting point is the question of who qualifies as the importer. The answer will generally depend on the agreed Incoterms rule. Under DDP, the seller bears the risk of import refusal and customs duties, whereas under DAP, FCA or EXW, these risks generally fall on the buyer. In construction and plant engineering contracts where steel components are sourced from third countries, this allocation is by no means always clear. An express contractual clarification is therefore advisable.

The provision of the required evidence should be established as a primary contractual obligation. For each batch, a mill test certificate should be required, identifying the producing mill, Melt and Pour country and heat number, in addition to clearly linking these details to the relevant delivery item. For traded goods, the original melting mill must be identified, not merely the downstream processor. In the absence of such a provision, it may quickly become contentious under Austrian law whether a missing certificate constitutes a defect within the meaning of Sections 922 et seq. of the Austrian General Civil Code (ABGB) or amounts to partial non-performance. In cross-border sales contracts, the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) will often apply; Article 34 CISG requires the seller to provide documents relating to the goods, but only those documents required by the contract.

It is also advisable to include an express warranty by the supplier regarding the Melt and Pour country and heat number. Since the Implementing Regulation recognises contractual clauses as evidence, such a warranty has not only contractual and liability implications but also evidentiary value for customs purposes.

The same applies to delivery deadlines: they should only be deemed met once the goods and all supporting documentation have been provided. An import refusal due to missing documentation should not be treated contractually as force majeure and contractual penalties should be structured accordingly. If a quota is exhausted during a delay, the contract should clearly specify who bears the resulting 50% duty. If the delay is attributable to the supplier, an indemnification and recourse claim should generally be available.

Companies entering into long-term contracts should also factor in foreseeable legal changes, including the potential transition to quota allocation based on the Melt and Pour country and the possible extension of the rules to downstream products. A change-in-law clause providing for a price adjustment or termination right should therefore be included in the contract. The same applies to a consent requirement – or at least a notification obligation – if the supplier changes the melting mill, as a new Melt and Pour country could in future result in allocation to a different quota. All such obligations should be passed on to upstream suppliers on a back-to-back basis and supported by appropriate audit and information rights.

Two Practical Examples:

• An Upper Austrian plant engineering company sources seamless pipes for a power plant project through a trader in Türkiye under DAP Linz delivery terms. The pipes were rolled in Türkiye, but the billets originate from a steel mill in another country and the trader’s certificate identifies only the rolling mill. As the importer, the plant engineering company would have to bridge this evidentiary gap with supplementary documents until September 2027; thereafter, it will be required to provide the certificate issued by the melting mill. The supply contract should therefore require the trader to pass on the original certificate issued by the producing mill. It should also allocate the consequences of an import refusal to the trader, including any contractual penalties that the plant engineering company itself owes to the power plant operator.
• The situation is different for a Vienna-based steel trader that has entered into multi-year framework agreements with mills in Asia at fixed prices. If, from 2028 onwards, the Melt and Pour country determines access to quotas, a supplier’s change of input material could result in the goods being allocated to a country-specific quota that has already been exhausted. A consent requirement for changes of the producing mill and a price adjustment clause covering additional customs duties can mitigate this risk.

Five Recommendations for Decision-Makers:

• Cross-check your steel product portfolio against the CN codes listed in Annex I to the Steel Regulation and Annex XVII to Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 to determine which imports are affected.
• Request a mill test certificate from your suppliers for each shipment, stating the Melt and Pour country and heat number and clarify which alternative supporting documents will be available until the end of the transitional period on 30 September 2027.
• Review existing supply and framework agreements: documentation obligations, warranties regarding the Melt and Pour country and a clear allocation of the risks associated with customs duties and import refusal should be included in every agreement.
• Align the documentation for Melt and Pour, Russia-related sanctions and CBAM to ensure that no inconsistent information is provided to customs authorities.
• The Commission’s reviews by mid-2027 (potential extension to downstream products) and mid-2028 (Melt and Pour country as a quota criterion) will be decisive for the future scope of the rules and access to tariff quotas.

Companies that use this time to establish reliable certification processes with their suppliers and adapt their contracts will be better placed to avoid import refusals and prepare for the possibility that, from 2028 onwards, the Melt and Pour country may determine access to tariff quotas.