top of page
Search

Chinese Unfair Competition and Tariff Policy: The Case of Ceramics



The Colombian Government recently imposed a 25% tariff on ceramic tile imports for countries with which it has no Free Trade Agreement, such as China (Congress of the Republic of Colombia, 2026). This measure aims to protect local industry and jobs against imports that were growing by up to 135% per year, with artificially low prices generating unfair competition.


Unlike an antidumping measure (applied when a product is sold below its market price in the country of origin), in this case the “smart tariffs” mechanism was used to expedite national protection. However, the ceramics case serves to emphasize that tariff or antidumping policy alone is not sufficient to achieve its objectives.


Why Are They Insufficient? Three Reasons.


  1. Evasion through technical smuggling. Since tariff rates are set to specific tariff subheadings and countries, this incentivizes moving goods by incorrectly declaring subheadings or countries of origin. For example, in Colombia a “smuggling entrepreneur” might attempt to pass ceramic tiles (subject to the tariff) off as ceramic mosaics or finishing pieces (not included in the Decree, but physically similar enough to fool a customs inspector). For ceramic products as a whole—chapter 69—official data estimate average smuggling of 78 million dollars between 2020 and 2024 (CIMA, 2024), with underinvoicing as the primary method.



  1. The risk of shifting toward local unfair competition. When tariffs or antidumping measures raise the cost of direct imports, the unfair actor does not exit the market: it changes tactics. One tactic is to enter as a producer within the destination country, where goods are labeled as domestic and fall outside the reach of any border measure. This displacement phenomenon has already caused plant closures in the region, such as the case of Celima in Peru, which affected 400 workers (Infobae Perú, 2025). According to industry sources, the closure was driven by the pressure of low Chinese porcelain tile prices.


    What is unfair is not the investment itself, but the conditions under which it is made. Tengda Cerámica Perú built a ceramic and porcelain tile plant in the Ica valley without an approved Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (SNI, 2024), which led the OEFA to open a sanctioning process, and the National Water Authority sanctioned it for directing water from an agricultural-use well to construction and domestic use. This non-compliance operates as a de facto subsidy: the entrant externalizes environmental and regulatory costs that the formal producer must bear. The pattern extends beyond ceramics; in Peru, recent steel plants are advancing without the required environmental and local permits for projects of their magnitude (Infobae Perú, 2026). The fact that machinery, parts, and labor come almost entirely from China—even if they are in Peru—implies that Chinese subsidies to this industry can have extraterritorial effects.


  1. The legal and temporal risk. These measures are not permanent; for example, the Colombian tariff has an initial validity of only two years (Congress of the Republic of Colombia, 2026). This means that when legal defenses fall, the impact can be immediate: in Mexico, the elimination of countervailing duties in February 2026 triggered a 60% increase in Chinese tableware imports in a single month (Secretaría de Economía de México, 2026).



The Invisible Impact


The protection of national industries is not only an economic issue. Commercial and legal vulnerability to unfair competition can also be devastating on other fronts. In Colombia, the measure seeks to protect six thousand formal jobs (Congress of the Republic of Colombia, 2026). In Mexico, Talavera ceramic producers—recognized as a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage—in regions such as Dolores Hidalgo have been put at risk by the sudden arrival of non-artisanal Chinese imitations that reduce employment and destroy cultural traditions (Más de Acá, 2026). In Peru, Indecopi (2025) has had to issue safety alerts after detecting Chinese tableware that breaks with hot liquids, posing a physical danger to consumers.


Final Considerations


This story is not exclusive to ceramics; it repeats itself across hundreds of sectors such as steel, aluminum, automotive, and textiles. Unfortunately, at Strategos BIP we believe that the risk of Chinese unfair competition will continue to grow due to tariff wars, China’s aggressive and subsidized export behavior, and the use of smuggling as a money-laundering mechanism by organized crime (Strategos BIP, 2026).


In 2026, the commercial landscape demands that governments and industries be more cautious. Negotiations with partners such as China must prioritize sustainability and domestic productivity alongside the trade balance. The commercial future of Latin America is not built on low prices—it is built on quality, reputation, employment, tax revenue, and the rule of law.


At Strategos BIP, we provide specialized advisory services in illegal trade mitigation and unfair competition. If your company’s market share, competitiveness, and continuity are threatened by this phenomenon, contact us for an initial diagnosis at info@strategosbip.com. We are your allies against illegal trade.


References


Comments

bottom of page