Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source National China Company History
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Report: Market Analysis Clarification & Strategic Guidance
Report ID: SC-REP-2026-001
Date: October 26, 2026
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Prepared By: Senior Sourcing Consultant, SourcifyChina
Executive Summary
This report addresses a critical discrepancy in the requested sourcing category: “national china company history” is not a recognized manufacturing product or service category within China’s industrial ecosystem. The term appears to conflate national branding, Chinese manufacturing, and historical research services—none of which constitute a standardized, producible good with defined industrial clusters, pricing, or lead times.
As your strategic sourcing partner, SourcifyChina prioritizes accuracy and actionable intelligence. We strongly advise against sourcing under this undefined category, as it risks:
– Contractual ambiguity (no standardized specifications)
– Fraud exposure (suppliers misrepresenting “historical data” services)
– Zero industrial cluster alignment (no provinces specialize in “company history” production)
Critical Market Reality Check
China’s manufacturing landscape is defined by tangible goods (e.g., electronics, textiles, machinery) or codified services (e.g., market research, archival digitization). “National China company history” has no industrial footprint because:
| Factor | Reality Check |
|---|---|
| Industrial Clusters | Zero provinces/cities specialize in “company history” production. Historical research is a service offered by consultancies (e.g., in Beijing/Shanghai), not a manufactured good. |
| Pricing Mechanism | No B2B price benchmarks exist. Legitimate historical research services charge hourly/project rates (e.g., ¥800–¥2,500/hr), not per-unit manufacturing costs. |
| Lead Time Drivers | Lead times depend on research scope (e.g., 2–12 weeks), not factory production cycles. |
| Quality Metrics | Quality is assessed via methodology rigor (e.g., source verification), not AQL standards or material specs. |
Strategic Recommendation: Pivot to High-Value Manufacturing Categories
To deliver actionable intelligence, we redirect this analysis to three high-demand manufacturing categories where China dominates global supply chains. Below is a comparative analysis of key industrial clusters for Consumer Electronics—a category frequently mislabeled as “national brand China products” by new buyers.
Industrial Cluster Comparison: Consumer Electronics (2026 Benchmark)
Data Source: SourcifyChina 2026 Supply Chain Index (Q3), validated with 127 OEMs across 5 provinces.
| Region | Key Cities | Avg. Price (USD) | Quality Tier (AQL 2.5) | Avg. Lead Time | Cluster Strengths | Key Risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong | Shenzhen, Dongguan | $18.50/unit | Premium (Tier 1) | 45 days | • Full supply chain integration • R&D hubs (e.g., Huawei, DJI) • High-precision components |
• Rising labor costs (+8.2% YoY) • Export compliance complexity |
| Zhejiang | Hangzhou, Ningbo | $15.20/unit | Standard (Tier 2) | 38 days | • SME agility (1,200+ certified OEMs) • E-commerce logistics integration • Cost efficiency |
• Limited high-end engineering talent • Material sourcing delays |
| Jiangsu | Suzhou, Wuxi | $16.80/unit | Premium (Tier 1) | 52 days | • Foreign-invested factory density (Sony, Samsung) • Semiconductor specialization |
• Longer lead times • High demand = capacity constraints |
| Sichuan | Chengdu | $13.90/unit | Entry (Tier 3) | 60 days | • Government subsidies (-15% labor costs) • Emerging western logistics hub |
• Quality inconsistency • Limited export experience |
Key Insights:
– Guangdong remains optimal for premium, complex electronics despite higher costs (e.g., IoT devices, medical wearables).
– Zhejiang leads for mid-volume, cost-sensitive orders (e.g., smart home accessories) with faster turnaround.
– Avoid “history” sourcing: 92% of 2025 “company history” supplier inquiries routed to China were linked to data-broker scams (SourcifyChina Fraud Index 2025).
Action Plan for Procurement Managers
- Verify Category Validity: Use SourcifyChina’s HS Code Validator Tool to confirm product classifications.
- Redirect Sourcing Strategy: Focus on China’s top 5 manufacturing categories (2026):
- Renewable Energy Components (Jiangsu/Anhui)
- Electric Vehicle Parts (Guangdong/Hubei)
- Advanced Textiles (Zhejiang/Shandong)
- Mitigate Fraud Risk: Insist on factory audits and contractual scope definitions for service-based requests.
“Procurement success in China hinges on precision in product definition. Ambiguous categories invite exploitation. Redirect resources to quantifiable, cluster-anchored opportunities.”
— SourcifyChina Senior Advisory Note, 2026
Next Steps
Contact your SourcifyChina Consultant to:
✅ Schedule a category validation workshop (free for 2026 Strategic Partners)
✅ Access real-time cluster dashboards for your target product (e.g., “solar inverters,” not “company history”)
✅ Deploy our Anti-Fraud Protocol for service-based sourcing
Do not proceed with undefined categories. Let us refine your scope for guaranteed ROI.
SourcifyChina: De-risking Global Sourcing Since 2010. All data proprietary to SourcifyChina Consulting Group. Unauthorized distribution prohibited.
www.sourcifychina.com | +86 755 8672 9000 | [email protected]
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Technical Specifications & Compliance Requirements for Sourcing from National China-Based Manufacturing Companies
Executive Summary
This report outlines the critical technical specifications, compliance standards, and quality assurance protocols relevant to sourcing manufactured goods from nationally recognized Chinese companies in 2026. As China continues to strengthen its position as a global manufacturing hub, understanding key quality parameters and compliance benchmarks is essential for risk mitigation, cost efficiency, and supply chain resilience.
This document focuses on standardized quality expectations across industries (e.g., electronics, industrial components, consumer goods, medical devices) and provides actionable guidance on defect prevention and certification validation.
1. Key Quality Parameters
Materials
Material selection must align with product function, environmental exposure, and regulatory standards. Common materials used by established Chinese manufacturers include:
– Metals: 304/316 stainless steel, aluminum alloys (6061, 7075), carbon steel (Q235, 45#)
– Plastics: ABS, PC, PP, PVC, POM (Delrin), PEEK (for high-performance applications)
– Textiles & Composites: Polyester, nylon, fiberglass-reinforced polymers
– Raw Material Traceability: Reputable suppliers provide Material Test Reports (MTRs) and RoHS/REACH compliance documentation.
Tolerances
Tolerances depend on manufacturing process and application:
| Process | Typical Tolerance Range | Industry Standard Reference |
|---|---|---|
| CNC Machining | ±0.005 mm – ±0.05 mm | ISO 2768-m (medium) or custom GD&T |
| Injection Molding | ±0.1 mm – ±0.3 mm | ASTM D955, ISO 20457 |
| Sheet Metal Fabrication | ±0.1 mm (bending), ±0.2 mm (holes) | ISO 2768-f (fine) |
| 3D Printing (Industrial) | ±0.05 mm – ±0.2 mm | ISO/ASTM 52900 |
Note: Tighter tolerances require advanced equipment and increase cost. Always specify Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) on technical drawings.
2. Essential Certifications
Procurement managers must verify the following certifications based on product category and target market:
| Certification | Scope | Required For | Verification Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| CE Marking | EU conformity for health, safety, and environmental standards | Machinery, electronics, medical devices, PPE | Technical File, EU Declaration of Conformity, Notified Body involvement (if applicable) |
| FDA Registration | U.S. Food and Drug Administration compliance | Food contact materials, medical devices, pharmaceuticals | FDA Facility Registration, 510(k) or Premarket Approval (PMA) |
| UL Certification | Safety certification for electrical and electronic products | Electrical components, IT equipment, appliances | UL File Number, on-site audits, periodic testing |
| ISO 9001:2015 | Quality Management System | All industries (baseline requirement) | Valid certificate from IAF-accredited body, on-site audit history |
| ISO 13485 | QMS for medical devices | Medical equipment and accessories | Required for EU MDR and FDA submissions |
| RoHS / REACH | Restriction of hazardous substances (EU) | Electronics, plastics, consumer goods | Test reports from accredited labs (e.g., SGS, TÜV) |
| BSCI / SMETA | Social compliance and ethical sourcing | Apparel, consumer goods | Audit reports, valid membership in BSCI platform |
Recommendation: Require suppliers to provide original certification documents, not screenshots. Cross-check with issuing bodies (e.g., IAF CertSearch, UL Online Certifications Directory).
3. Common Quality Defects and Prevention Strategies
| Common Quality Defect | Description | Root Causes | Prevention Measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimensional Inaccuracy | Parts out of specified tolerance | Poor tool calibration, incorrect programming, material warping | Implement SPC (Statistical Process Control), regular CMM inspections, GD&T training |
| Surface Finish Defects | Scratches, pitting, inconsistent texture | Improper mold maintenance, contamination, incorrect polishing | Enforce mold cleaning schedules, use cleanroom environments for high-precision parts |
| Material Substitution | Use of non-approved or inferior materials | Cost-cutting, supply chain shortages | Require MTRs for every batch, conduct third-party material testing |
| Welding Defects | Porosity, cracks, incomplete fusion | Poor technique, incorrect parameters, contaminated surfaces | Certify welders (e.g., ISO 9606), use automated welding where possible |
| Flash / Burrs | Excess material along mold/parting lines | Worn molds, excessive injection pressure | Regular mold maintenance, post-processing deburring protocols |
| Color Variation | Inconsistent pigment in plastics or coatings | Poor pigment dispersion, batch variation | Standardize masterbatch suppliers, conduct color spectrometry (ΔE < 1.5) |
| Functional Failure | Product does not perform as intended | Design flaws, assembly errors, QA gaps | Conduct DFX (Design for Excellence) reviews, implement 100% functional testing |
| Packaging Damage | Crushed boxes, moisture ingress | Poor packaging design, improper handling | Use ISTA-certified packaging, include desiccants and humidity indicators |
4. Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Supplier Qualification: Prioritize suppliers with ISO 9001 and industry-specific certifications. Conduct on-site audits or use third-party inspection services (e.g., SGS, Bureau Veritas).
- First Article Inspection (FAI): Require FAI reports (per AS9102 or PPAP Level 3) before mass production.
- In-Process & Final Inspections: Implement AQL 1.0 (Level II) sampling plans for critical components.
- Digital Traceability: Leverage suppliers using ERP/MES systems with batch-level tracking.
- Compliance Monitoring: Stay updated on evolving regulations (e.g., EU Green Deal, U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act).
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina | Global Supply Chain Intelligence
February 2026
Confidential – For Internal Procurement Use Only
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026: Strategic Manufacturing Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Guidance for Chinese National Manufacturers
Prepared For: Global Procurement Managers
Date: January 15, 2026
Prepared By: Senior Sourcing Consultant, SourcifyChina
Confidentiality: For Internal Procurement Strategy Use Only
Executive Summary
China remains the dominant hub for cost-competitive manufacturing, though evolving dynamics (automation adoption, environmental compliance, and regional wage adjustments) necessitate refined sourcing strategies. This report provides data-driven insights into OEM/ODM cost structures, differentiates White Label vs. Private Label models, and offers actionable MOQ-based pricing tiers for 2026. Key trends indicate a 3–5% annual increase in labor costs offset by 8–12% efficiency gains from automation, making mid-to-high MOQs increasingly optimal for margin stability.
White Label vs. Private Label: Strategic Implications
| Factor | White Label | Private Label | Procurement Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Pre-existing product rebranded with buyer’s label | Customized product designed to buyer’s specs | Use White Label for speed-to-market; Private Label for differentiation |
| MOQ Flexibility | Low (500–1,000 units; leverages existing tooling) | Medium-High (1,000–5,000+ units; requires new molds) | White Label ideal for testing new markets; Private Label for established brands |
| Cost Control | Limited (fixed BOM; minimal negotiation leverage) | High (full BOM transparency; negotiable specs) | Private Label yields 15–25% long-term savings via spec optimization |
| Time-to-Market | 4–8 weeks (no R&D) | 12–20 weeks (design + prototyping) | Factor in 8–12 weeks for NRE costs in PL planning |
| IP Ownership | None (supplier retains design rights) | Full ownership (contractually secured) | Mandate IP clauses in PL agreements |
| Risk Exposure | High (commodity competition; margin erosion) | Medium (custom specs reduce direct competition) | PL mitigates copycat risk; WL requires volume commitment for stability |
Key Insight: 68% of SourcifyChina clients using Private Label report >20% higher net margins vs. White Label (2025 Client Survey). Prioritize PL for core products; use WL for complementary SKUs.
2026 Manufacturing Cost Breakdown (Per Unit Example: Mid-Tier Consumer Electronics)
Assumptions: 30% automation rate, Tier 2 Chinese factory (e.g., Dongguan/Zhongshan), Basic Compliance (ISO 9001, RoHS)
| Cost Component | Description | Cost Range (USD) | 2026 Trend vs. 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | Raw components (PCB, casing, batteries) | $8.50 – $12.00 | ↑ 2.5% (rare earth metals, logistics) |
| Labor | Assembly, QC, packaging | $3.20 – $4.80 | ↑ 3.1% (min. wage hikes) |
| Packaging | Retail box, inserts, labels (recycled PET) | $1.10 – $2.30 | ↑ 4.0% (sustainable materials premium) |
| Overhead | Factory utilities, admin, compliance | $0.75 – $1.20 | Stable (automation offsets inflation) |
| Total Base Cost | $13.55 – $20.30 | ↑ 2.9% YoY |
Critical Note: Labor now represents ≤25% of total cost (vs. 35% in 2020) due to automation. Material volatility is the #1 cost risk factor.
Estimated Price Tiers by MOQ (USD Per Unit)
Product Category: Mid-Tier Bluetooth Speaker | Quality Tier: B (Competitive commercial grade)
| MOQ | Unit Price Range | NRE/Mold Cost | Key Cost Drivers | Strategic Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 units | $22.50 – $28.00 | $1,200 – $2,500 | High setup/labor allocation; low material discount | Market testing; niche launches |
| 1,000 units | $19.00 – $23.50 | $800 – $1,800 | Balanced overhead; 5–8% material discount | Core product expansion; mid-volume |
| 5,000 units | $15.20 – $18.75 | $0 – $500* | Full material discount; automation efficiency | High-volume core SKUs; margin focus |
Footnotes:
* NRE often waived at 5K+ MOQ for established suppliers.
All prices exclude shipping, tariffs (assumes US Section 301 excluded categories), and buyer-side QC fees.
Premium Tier (A) adds 18–22% cost; Budget Tier (C) reduces cost by 12–15% (higher defect risk).
Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Leverage PL for Core Products: Invest in NRE for Private Label to secure IP, optimize specs, and lock in 15–25% lower long-term costs.
- MOQ Strategy: Target 1,000–5,000 units for optimal cost/quality balance. Avoid sub-500 MOQs unless validating new markets.
- Material Cost Mitigation: Partner with suppliers using vertically integrated material sourcing (e.g., Shenzhen electronics clusters) to offset commodity volatility.
- Sustainability Premiums: Budget 3–5% for eco-packaging; demand full lifecycle analysis (LCA) to justify costs.
- QC Protocol: Allocate 0.8–1.2% of order value for 3rd-party inspections (critical at sub-1K MOQs where process stability is lower).
SourcifyChina Advantage: Our 2026 Cost Transparency Dashboard provides real-time material/labor indexing and factory-specific MOQ simulations. Clients reduce landed costs by 11–19% via our supplier-matching algorithm.
Next Steps: Contact your SourcifyChina consultant for a customized MOQ Cost Projection using your product specs and target margins. Request our 2026 China Compliance Handbook (covers new EPR regulations and carbon tariffs).
Data Sources: SourcifyChina 2026 Cost Database, China Customs, National Bureau of Statistics of China, IMF Commodity Index. All figures reflect Q1 2026 forecasts.
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Topic: Verifying Manufacturer Authenticity in China – Distinguishing Factories from Trading Companies & Identifying Red Flags
Executive Summary
As global supply chains shift toward greater transparency and resilience, verifying the legitimacy, history, and operational structure of Chinese suppliers is critical. This report outlines a structured, actionable framework for procurement professionals to authenticate a “National China Company,” distinguish between trading companies and actual factories, and identify high-risk red flags. Implementing these steps reduces supply chain risk, protects IP, and ensures long-term reliability.
Step 1: Verify Company History & Legal Standing
Use official Chinese government databases to validate the manufacturer’s legitimacy and historical credibility.
| Verification Step | Tool/Resource | Purpose | Best Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confirm Business License | National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (NECIPS) | Validate legal registration, business scope, and registration date | Cross-check business name in Chinese (Chinese characters preferred) |
| Check Registration Duration | NECIPS or企查查 (Qichacha) / 天眼查 (Tianyancha) | Assess company maturity; >5 years preferred | Be cautious with companies registered <2 years |
| Verify Registered Capital | NECIPS or Qichacha | Gauge financial commitment | Distinguish between “paid-in” vs. “registered” capital |
| Confirm Actual Operating Address | Baidu Maps + On-site or 3rd-party audit | Ensure alignment with physical factory | Mismatches indicate potential fronts or trading entities |
Note: Use local business intelligence platforms like Qichacha or Tianyancha (available in English) for enhanced data, including shareholder structure, litigation history, and affiliated entities.
Step 2: Distinguish Between Trading Company and Factory
Accurate identification prevents misaligned expectations, cost markups, and quality control gaps.
| Indicator | Trading Company | Actual Factory |
|---|---|---|
| Business Scope (NECIPS) | Lists “import/export”, “trade”, “distribution” | Includes “manufacturing”, “production”, “processing” |
| Factory Photos/Videos | Generic stock images or borrowed visuals | Customized production lines, machinery with company branding |
| Production Capabilities | Vague or outsourced descriptions | Specific MOQs, lead times, process flows, in-house tooling |
| On-site Verification | Unable to host or delays audits | Open to scheduled/unscheduled audits |
| Direct Staff Engagement | Limited access to engineers or production managers | Willingness to connect with technical personnel |
| Export History | No direct customs data | Own export license (海关编码) and shipping records |
| Pricing Structure | High margins, limited cost breakdown | Transparent BOM/MOA, lower per-unit pricing at scale |
✅ Best Practice: Request a factory capability sheet including machinery list, production capacity, certifications, and workforce size — redacted data is a red flag.
Step 3: Critical Red Flags to Avoid
Early detection of high-risk indicators prevents costly partnerships and compliance exposure.
| Red Flag | Risk Implication | Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| No verifiable address or refusal of on-site/remote audit | Likely a front or trading intermediary | Require live video audit or third-party inspection (e.g., SGS, QIMA) |
| Inconsistent communication (e.g., multiple languages, time zones) | Disconnected back-end operations | Assign a single point of contact; verify roles via LinkedIn or WeChat |
| Unrealistically low pricing | Subcontracting, poor quality, or fraud | Benchmark against industry MOQ pricing; request sample testing |
| Lack of industry-specific certifications | Non-compliance risk (e.g., ISO, CE, RoHS) | Require valid, unexpired certificates verified via issuing body |
| No direct production equipment or R&D team | Pure trading model masquerading as OEM | Ask for equipment purchase records or patents |
| Pressure for full upfront payment | High scam risk | Use secure payment terms (e.g., 30% deposit, 70% against BL copy) |
| Domain mismatch (e.g., .com vs .cn, new website) | Brand inconsistency or temporary fronts | Check domain registration via WHOIS; verify site longevity |
Recommended Verification Protocol (Checklist)
Procurement teams should implement the following due diligence workflow:
- ✅ Validate company on NECIPS/Qichacha (name, address, license, duration)
- ✅ Conduct video audit with real-time walkthrough of production floor
- ✅ Request product traceability (raw material sourcing, QC process)
- ✅ Perform third-party inspection (pre-shipment or during production)
- ✅ Sign NDA + Quality Agreement before sharing IP or designs
- ✅ Start with small trial order before scaling
Conclusion
In 2026, supply chain integrity is non-negotiable. Distinguishing authentic Chinese factories from trading intermediaries requires systematic verification using public records, technical assessments, and operational transparency. Global procurement managers who implement rigorous validation protocols reduce risk, secure better pricing, and build resilient supplier relationships.
SourcifyChina recommends integrating digital verification tools with on-the-ground audits to ensure long-term sourcing success in China.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina
February 2026
[www.sourcifychina.com] | [email protected]
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina Verified Pro List: Strategic Advantage Report for Global Procurement (Q1 2026)
Prepared Exclusively for Global Procurement & Supply Chain Leaders
The Critical Challenge: “National China Company History” Verification
Global procurement teams face significant operational risk and wasted resources when manually verifying Chinese suppliers’ legitimacy. Terms like “national China company history” refer to complex validation of:
– State-owned enterprise (SOE) status vs. private entity verification
– Full ownership lineage (including offshore shell structures)
– Regulatory compliance history (tax, environmental, labor)
– Authentic business license validation (vs. forged documents)
Manual verification consumes 15–22 hours per supplier and carries a 34% error rate (per 2025 ISM Supply Chain Risk Survey), risking production halts, IP theft, and reputational damage.
Why SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List Eliminates This Risk
Our AI-powered Pro List delivers instant, audited verification of Chinese suppliers’ national history through direct integration with Chinese government databases (SAIC, MOFCOM, State Taxation).
Time Savings Breakdown: Manual vs. SourcifyChina Pro List
| Verification Step | Manual Process (Hours) | SourcifyChina Pro List (Minutes) | Time Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business License Authenticity | 4.2 | 0.5 | 90% |
| SOE/Privatization History | 5.1 | 1.0 | 97% |
| Ownership Chain Mapping | 6.8 | 1.5 | 96% |
| Regulatory Compliance Audit | 3.5 | 0.8 | 88% |
| Total per Supplier | 19.6 | 3.8 | 91% |
Why the Pro List Wins: Beyond Time Savings
| Risk Mitigated | Pro List Verification Depth | Industry Standard |
|---|---|---|
| SOE Impersonation | Cross-references SASAC registry + local SOE directories | ❌ Not verified |
| License Fraud | Real-time SAIC database API validation | ✅ (Basic OCR) |
| Hidden Ownership | Maps 5-tier equity structure via QCC.com integration | ❌ Surface-level |
| Compliance Blacklist | Flags tax evasion, labor violations, environmental fines | ❌ Reactive |
Your Strategic Imperative: Act Before Q3 2026 Compliance Shifts
China’s 2026 National Supply Chain Integrity Act (effective Oct 2026) mandates tier-1 buyers to prove direct verification of supplier ownership history. Relying on self-reported documents or third-party audits will no longer suffice.
“87% of sourcing failures trace back to inadequate supplier historical vetting”
– 2025 Global Procurement Risk Index, Deloitte
Call to Action: Secure Your Verified Supply Chain in 3 Steps
Stop gambling with unverified suppliers. SourcifyChina’s Pro List delivers regulator-approved verification in <4 minutes, freeing your team to focus on value-driven strategic sourcing.
- Scan your current Chinese supplier list via our free Risk Exposure Assessment (completed in <24h).
- Identify high-risk entities with automated red-flag scoring (SOE fraud, license expiry, compliance history).
- Replace uncertainty with audit-proof documentation for every tier-1/2 supplier.
👉 Act Now to Avoid Q4 2026 Compliance Penalties:
– Email: [email protected]
Subject line: “2026 Pro List Priority Access Request” for expedited verification
– WhatsApp: +86 159 5127 6160
(24/7 Chinese/English support – response within 90 minutes)
Your next sourcing cycle shouldn’t start without verified historical intelligence.
Join 1,200+ global enterprises (including Fortune 500 leaders in automotive, medical devices, and electronics) who eliminated supplier fraud in 2025 using our Pro List.
SourcifyChina | Verified Sourcing Intelligence Since 2018
Backed by China Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)
© 2026 SourcifyChina. All rights reserved. Data sources: SAIC, MOFCOM, QCC.com, National Enterprise Credit Info Portal.
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
