Switching seafood sourcing from Norway to Iceland

Sourcing seafood is now a tariff decision as much as a supplier decision. Goods from Norway clear at an effective 14.5%, while Iceland clears the same category at 2% — about $13,188 a year at $100,000 of imports. For a category this exposed to surcharges, the sourcing map is effectively a pricing map. What follows is the layer-by-layer comparison, the trade context behind each rate, and how the gap grows with volume.

How the tariff stacks compare

Start with the two duty stacks side by side. Sourced from Norway, the goods face a 2% Most-Favoured-Nation base duty and a 12.5% forced-labor Section 301 duty on its seafood, an effective 14.5% once the $49.74 in processing fees are added. On the Iceland side, Customs applies a 2% Most-Favoured-Nation base duty on its seafood, an effective 2% once the $49.74 in processing fees are added. Processing and harbor fees apply identically whichever country ships the goods ($49.74 here), confirming the saving is pure duty, not fee. The per-shipment gap comes to $1,318.75 on $10,000 of goods — a clean read on the 12.5% rate difference. Multiply across your volume and it is near $3,297 for $25,000 and about $13,188 for $100,000 a year. At order level, $25,000 of goods carries roughly $3,297 more duty from Norway than from Iceland.

Trade context

seafood — Shrimp, Salmon, Tuna, Tilapia, Crab, Lobster, and Processed fish fillets and similar goods — falls under HTS 03, 1604, 1605. Seafood is a high-turnover category where landed-cost discipline separates the importers who hold margin from those who don't. For budgeting purposes: seafood tariffs are relatively low; Section 122 lapsed to 0% on July 24, 2026 and adds nothing regardless of origin, so US seafood prices are more affected by domestic supply and fuel costs. Norway (Europe) sends the United States largely crude oil petroleum, natural gas lng, and seafood. Absent a trade deal, Norway's seafood is assessed standard duties and whatever surcharges apply. Iceland (Europe) sends the United States largely seafood, aluminum products, and industrial machinery. Absent a trade deal, Iceland's seafood is assessed standard duties and whatever surcharges apply. Shared Europe routing keeps logistics roughly comparable and leaves the duty gap as the decisive number. The recommendation is filtered to feasible suppliers, so Iceland appears because it plausibly makes seafood, not merely because its rate is low. With the US running its highest average tariff in decades, concentrated exposure to one high-duty origin is now a measurable annual cost rather than an abstract risk.

Recommendation

Anchor your own volume to these tiers: $6,594 at $50,000, $32,969 at $250,000, $131,875 at $1,000,000, and about $13,188 at $100,000. The numbers come straight from the landed-cost engine, with product cost and shipping fixed across both origins to isolate the tariff difference. These figures reflect tariff and fee savings only, assuming equal product cost — your actual landed cost also depends on price and freight, which vary by supplier. Read the $13,188 as a transition budget — if re-sourcing to Iceland costs less than the annual saving, it pays back inside a year. Diligence on Iceland is commercial, not regulatory: supplier capacity, MOQ, tooling and re-qualification cost — the duty advantage itself is already settled above. Time the switch with the policy calendar in mind — the post-Section-122 picture can favour a different origin entirely. Use the Tariff Savings Finder to test your real numbers and see alternatives beyond Iceland.