Since 1 October 2026, importers of certain steel products have faced a significant new compliance requirement: they must now be able to identify and document the country in which the steel was first melted and cast. Failure to provide adequate evidence can result in imports being refused at the EU border, regardless of available quota capacity, with potentially far-reaching consequences for supply chains, customs duties and contractual risk allocation.

This article examines the EU’s new “Melt and Pour” rules, the documentation importers must obtain, the interaction with sanctions and CBAM requirements, as well as the practical steps businesses should take now to avoid disruption and prepare for further regulatory changes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.