China vs Canada: Import Tariff Comparison 2026
China faces Section 301 tariffs of up to 25%, plus the forced-labor Section 301 duty at the 12.5% tier that backfilled Section 122 after it lapsed on July 24, 2026, making Canada a compelling sourcing alternative for lumber wood products and related product categories. The total effective tariff rate on imports from China reaches 12.5%, combining the MFN base rate with China-specific Section 301 duties and the forced-labor Section 301 duty — Section 122 itself lapsed to 0% and no longer contributes to the total. By contrast, Canada faces a total effective rate of 12.5%, avoiding the Section 301 penalty entirely. This tariff differential has accelerated supply chain diversification away from China in 2026, with Canada emerging as one of the primary beneficiaries. For importers weighing both origins, the rate spread of 0% is a significant landed cost factor that directly affects margins and pricing decisions.
Tariff Rate Comparison
Lumber & Wood Products| Rate Type | China | CanadaUSMCA |
|---|---|---|
| MFN Base RateMost Favored Nation tariff | 2.50% | 2.50% |
| Section 232Steel & aluminum tariff | 10.00% | 10.00% |
| Section 301Unfair-trade action under 19 U.S.C. 2411 | N/A | N/A |
| Bilateral DealNegotiated country rate, compared against the other special layers | N/A | N/A |
| Total Effective Rate | 12.50% | 12.50% |
Rate Comparison by Product Category
| Product | China | Canada | Savings ($10K) |
|---|---|---|---|
| lumber wood products | 12.5% | 12.5% | $0 |
| steel iron products | 78.0% | 53.0% | $2,650 |
| auto parts components | 53.0% | 28.0% | $2,650 |
| aluminum products | 79.0% | 54.0% | $2,650 |
| industrial machinery | 39.5% | 12.0% | $2,915 |
Trade Agreement Status
China has no negotiated bilateral rate charged on its goods — any country-specific reciprocal rate it once carried was terminated on February 20, 2026 — and Section 122 lapsed to 0% on July 24, 2026, but China is on the forced-labor Section 301 covered list at the 12.5% tier, with Section 232 goods carved out and the charge on any given product depending on its MFN rate. Canada is a USMCA member — qualifying goods enter the US duty-free at 0% on every layer except Section 338, the retaliatory duty that reaches annexed non-Section-232 goods from August 19, 2026 and survives a USMCA preference claim. For products under Section 232 national security tariffs, S232 rates govern: a bilateral deal rate does not displace them, and Section 122 never applied to S232-covered goods while it was in force, before it lapsed to zero on July 24, 2026. China-origin goods additionally face Section 301 tariffs that stack on top of all other duties, making trade agreement status a defining factor in the total tariff burden.
When to Source from Each Country
Source from China when importing lumber wood products, where its tariff rates are more competitive. Source from Canada for steel iron products and auto parts components, where it carries the tariff advantage. Beyond tariff rates, factor in lead times, minimum order quantities, quality standards, and freight costs — the total landed cost comparison may shift depending on shipment volume and logistics conditions.
Full Landed Cost — $10,000 Shipment
Lumber & Wood ProductsChinaFull Landed Cost Breakdown
Based on a $10,000 ocean shipment (FOB value)
CanadaFull Landed Cost Breakdown
Based on a $10,000 ocean shipment (FOB value)
Savings Analysis
On a $10,000 shipment of lumber wood products, importing from China saves $0 in duties compared to Canada — a 0% reduction in total import costs. China incurs $1,325 in duties on the $10,000 shipment, while Canada incurs $1,325. This difference compounds across larger order volumes and is a key factor in supplier selection decisions for importers sourcing lumber wood products.
Frequently Asked Questions
The total effective tariff rate on lumber wood products is 12.5% from China and 12.5% from Canada under current 2026 tariff policy. These rates include the MFN base rate, any persisting bilateral deal rate, Section 232 duties for covered products, Section 301 tariffs for Chinese goods, and the forced-labor Section 301 duty that backfills the lapsed Section 122 surcharge for roughly 60 covered economies (Section 122 itself lapsed to 0% on July 24, 2026 and no longer applies). Use the CalcMyTariff.com calculator above to enter your specific invoice value and shipping details for a precise landed cost breakdown.
China does not have a formal trade agreement with the United States. Section 122 lapsed to 0% on July 24, 2026, so imports from China now face either a forced-labor Section 301 duty (if China is on the roughly 60-economy covered list) or the base MFN rate alone with no special-tariff layer.
Yes, Canada is a USMCA member, and qualifying goods clear at 0% on every tariff layer but one. Section 338 — a 50% retaliatory duty that takes effect August 19, 2026 on annexed goods outside the Section 232 carve-outs — survives a USMCA preference claim, so a qualifying good inside the annex pays it on top of its 0% preferential rate. Outside that annex, Canada remains one of the most competitive sourcing origins for tariff purposes. Non-qualifying goods face standard tariff rates.
Canada is cheaper for steel iron products with a 53% total tariff rate, compared to 78% from China. On a $10,000 shipment, this 25% rate difference saves $2,500 in duties when sourcing from Canada.
Section 122, enacted in February 2026 for up to 150 days, imposed a global surcharge on most US imports until it lapsed on July 24, 2026. Section 122 no longer applies to China — it lapsed on July 24, 2026 — but China is on the forced-labor Section 301 covered list at the 12.5% tier, which backfilled the lapsed surcharge. Section 122 no longer applies to Canada — it lapsed on July 24, 2026 — but Canada is on the forced-labor Section 301 covered list at the 10% tier, which backfilled the lapsed surcharge. Since the lapse, a forced-labor Section 301 duty (10%/12.5% on ~60 economies) has backfilled the surcharge for most importers — model the realized post-July-24 structure, forced-labor duty included, when planning shipments.
Tariff rates from Tax Foundation, USITC, and Penn Wharton Budget Model; retaliatory and industry data from the ITA Foreign Retaliations Database and U.S. Census Bureau (NAICS). Last verified .