Poland was the largest direct EU market for Serbian iron and steel in 2025, importing €125.3 million of the products, while Germany led direct imports of Serbian aluminium. The different rankings show that EU-wide trade patterns for goods covered by the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) do not identify the main buyers of Serbia’s covered-sector exports. Serbia’s total EU exports in the HS72 iron and steel category were worth $640.7 million, or approximately €567 million at the 2025 average exchange rate.
Czechia was the second-largest direct EU market for Serbian HS72 goods, with imports valued at €77.8 million, followed by Hungary at €71.9 million. Italy imported €53.4 million and Slovenia €10.0 million. Germany’s direct imports were €4.9 million, while Bulgaria and Romania were also significant markets, although no import values were specified for either country.
The EU-wide rankings for imports of CBAM-coded goods from all extra-EU origins differed from the Serbia-specific figures. Italy accounted for 17.6% of their value in 2025, while Germany and the Netherlands each represented about 12.7%. Those rankings span steel, aluminium, fertilisers, power and other goods, and do not show purchases from Serbia alone.
Serbian aluminium trade and CBAM exposure
EU imports from Serbia in HS76, covering aluminium and articles, totalled $505.7 million in 2025, approximately €448 million. Germany was the largest direct reporting market, at €75.0 million, followed by Slovenia at €72.2 million and France at €64.0 million. Poland imported €25.4 million of Serbian aluminium, Hungary €14.3 million and Italy €12.1 million; Czechia’s imports were €6.0 million. Croatia and Romania also ranked behind the three leading markets, but no values were specified.
The euro figures are indicative conversions of US-dollar trade values using the 2025 average rate of €1 = $1.1300. HS72 and HS76 are chapter-level categories that include products such as ferrous and aluminium scrap outside CBAM Annex I coverage, so they indicate trade orientation and a possible compliance pipeline rather than the precise value of Serbia’s CBAM-liable sales. An eight-digit Combined Nomenclature match is needed to establish whether an individual delivery is covered.
Customs clearance does not establish where a product is ultimately consumed, and the importer of record may be a merchant, service centre or regional distributor rather than the industrial customer. A Serbian steel coil imported into Poland could be rolled, coated or shaped before being used in machinery sold in Germany. Aluminium recorded at Slovenia’s border could also move onward as a semi-finished product or be processed in several countries.
The direct-import pattern points to manufacturing and distribution clusters in central Europe, rather than showing that the largest EU customs markets buy every Serbian product. Steel suppliers should engage with buyers and processors in Poland, Czechia and Hungary, while aluminium exporters should prioritise contract chains in Germany, Slovenia and France.
Exporters need to identify both the party legally responsible as the CBAM declarant and the industrial customer that controls technical specifications. The party paying customs-related costs may not determine a material’s long-term competitiveness. If importers use conservative default emissions values while awaiting verified plant data, purchase prices could include a carbon premium greater than the producer’s actual emissions warrant. Exporters seeking to defend market share need documented production and emissions information that travels with the goods.
Elevated by CBAM by Clarion Engineer