AliExpress Tariffs: €3 Per Category, Not Per Package

The EU ends the €150 exemption: €10 order, €30 in tariffs

The end of the €150 customs exemption is not a new tax on the consumer. These tariffs function, in practice, exactly the same. Brussels has closed the biggest change to the Chinese parcel import regime in years, and the recipient of the letter will notice it before anyone else, with a red-flagged date: July 1st.

What exactly changes with tariffs on AliExpress, Shein and Temu

Until now, every package under €150 entered the EU without paying customs duty, which covered practically everything an individual buys on these platforms. A European manufacturer importing fabric, chips, or screws pays duty for every kilogram crossing their factory; a seller in Shenzhen sending the finished product in a parcel paid nothing. This asymmetry—sustainable like a hole, unsustainable like a free market—is what is being eliminated.

The official argument is textbook: to curb commercial dumping and prevent the advantage of local trade from being that it pays taxes that the other does not. The revenue generated is estimated at around €1.5 billion. VAT issues were resolved years ago with legal representatives established in Europe. Tariffs are more expensive and considerably more complicated to manage.

From 13 euros to 20: the surcharge that doesn't add up

The most repeated headline is simple: €10 order, €30 in tariffs. The reality is less apocalyptic and considerably more annoying. A basket with a watch strap costing €3 and a bidet shower for the toilet costing €10—totaling €13—now appears with a €7 surcharge. Total: €20. It is not 30% on the order; it is more than half.

The uncomfortable detail: 7 over 13 does not equal 3 over 10. Those who buy small lots of different items notice it on every line of the basket, and those buying spare parts notice it even more.

Why TARIC turns one package into three

The surcharge is applied by product category, not per package or per unit. And the categories are those of TARIC: over 15,000 different codes, where a lamp changes classification depending on the material and whether it has an integrated LED or not. Two items that the buyer sees as hardware may fall into different categories and double the cost. A batch of five different trinkets is not priced as a lot; it is priced as five.

Who pays: the tax incidence

This is where any consensus breaks down. Some argue that the penalty should fall on the origin—on the manufacturer, seller, and distributor competing unfairly—and not on the end customer, who always pays in the end. The counterargument is textbook and quite solid: all indirect tax on commercial activity ends up in the price. From the top chicken to the bottom.

The distinction matters. If the tax falls only on the buyer, the transfer to the final price is 100%. If it falls on the importer, they can be expected to absorb part of it. The context doesn't help: with Spanish unemployment at 10.4% and youth unemployment at 25%, cheap consumption is not a whim; it is a domestic reckoning.

Warehouses in Europe, consolidated flights and the Segarro route

The optimistic scenario suggests that if the regulation requires dispatch from European territory, platforms will have to invest, create jobs, improve warranties and returns, and, incidentally, discard the unusable junk that is currently untaxed. Paying two euros more for something costing ten in exchange for a guarantee and the ability to return it without praying.

The cynical scenario doesn't need warehouses: pure logistics engineering. Consolidating a full flight in China, deconsolidating it upon arrival through a European importer of the same group, and distributing from there. Since it does not circulate under the IOSS regime, the rate is not applied equally. Another variation: grouping orders from several customers under €150 and within the same customs category. And the geographical shortcut: Segarro, which already served as a gateway for Russian diesel when the European veto.

The intermediary sells the same thing with another margin

The protectionist argument has an obvious flaw: the chain being protected does not manufacture. It sells the same thing, produced by the same ones, with various intermediaries taking their cut. A package of ceramic accounts for €2.79 versus a necklace with those same pieces for almost €40 in a large store. A Japanese fishing lure of €15 to €20 versus the identical Chinese imitation for 2 or 3. A pair of leather gloves for €2 versus €14 in a sports chain.

There is a current that reads this as a cultural problem: in other countries, the buyer seeks European products even if they cost more; here, the mentality of finding the cheapest possible prevails, and that vicious circle continues to empty warehouses.
The rebuttal is historical: Spanish industry did not disappear with tariffs; it had been dismantled long before.

No one bets that these platforms will disappear. They are too big to fall and have room to reorganize logistics. It is likely that the package will still leave China and arrive with a different label. With reservations: if the surcharge ends up entirely in the final ticket, the consumption shock will be as predicted. If it is diluted throughout the chain, we will have paid the tariff without seeing it and without fixing anything.