Worked sourcing decision

B500B rebar to Hamburg: Turkey vs China

This modeled 20-tonne case shows why the lowest base landed cost was not enough to release a purchase order when quota allocation and plant evidence remained unresolved.

9 July 2026 planning case for 20 tonnes of B500B rebar to Hamburg: Türkiye €779/t conditional base, China €851/t fallback, and a hold-PO decision after the reviewed Türkiye queue equaled 178% of the Q3 opening quota.
9 July 2026 planning case for 20 tonnes of B500B rebar to Hamburg: Türkiye €779/t conditional base, China €851/t fallback, and a hold-PO decision after the reviewed Türkiye queue equaled 178% of the Q3 opening quota. Download the source-labelled case data.Download: 1x1 SVG · 4x3 SVG · 16x9 SVG.Credit: LandedSpec · © 2026 LandedSpec · CC BY 4.0 · Reuse and credit.

Short answer: Turkey or China for rebar to Germany?

Türkiye was the modeled conditional cost leader at €779 per tonne in this 20-tonne B500B case, excluding recoverable import VAT. China was the €851 per tonne practical fallback. The decision was still to hold the purchase order until the importer and broker confirmed quota treatment and the buyer joined the quoted mill to current plant and DIN 488 evidence. These are dated planning outputs, not executable supplier quotations.

Conditional base leader€779/tTürkiye, recoverable VAT excluded
Practical fallback€851/tChina, recoverable VAT excluded
DecisionHold POConfirm quota and evidence

Decision summary

Türkiye was the conditional cost leader, but indicative claims awaiting allocation equaled 178% of the reviewed Q3 opening quota during the blocking period. China was the practical fallback: its reviewed queue signal was much lower, while freight and default-value CBAM increased the 20-tonne result.

The recommendation was not to place a purchase order. The next step was a parallel RFQ with DIBt-listed plants in Türkiye and China, followed by broker confirmation of quota treatment and exact plant evidence for DIN 488.

Why the ranking changed

OriginBase resultTransportMain blockerDecision
Türkiye€779/t5–8 day road planning windowQuota queue and allocationConditional lead
China€851/t40–47 day port-to-port planning windowFreight, CBAM, long-length loadingFallback / quote next
IndiaNot costedQuote requiredNo comparable B500B/DIN 488 evidence basis foundScreened out

Evidence discipline

Data cut: 9 July 2026. Supplier prices were public market-screening benchmarks, not executable quotations. Freight and handling were planning inputs. The report modeled German import VAT separately from economic cost and treated unresolved quota allocation as a decision blocker.

The 20-tonne shipment is below the 50-tonne annual CBAM threshold on its own, but the base case assumes that the importer exceeds the threshold across all covered 2026 imports. Use the dated CBAM construction-import evidence checklist to control that annual threshold, installation data, default-versus-actual emissions decision, verification, certificate-price quarter, and 2027 declaration/surrender path.

The CSV exposes the shipment basis, market-screening price and freight inputs, CBAM assumptions, quota observations, calculated base and out-of-quota scenarios, source IDs, and caveats for each origin. Cite it with the data-cut date; do not present the planning values as supplier quotations or current quota availability.

Dataset reuse: license, attribution, and source terms.

Primary sources

Official sources used to frame the guidance. Check the current product and transaction before acting.

  1. EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2026/1384
  2. European Commission: TARIC quota consultation
  3. European Commission: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
  4. DIBt: Works and processor marks for reinforcing steel
  5. ECB: Euro foreign exchange reference rates
Before a deposit or PO

Are your supplier quotes ready to compare?

Answer eleven structured questions and get a private HOLD, VERIFY, or READY TO COMPARE result without entering your identity.