Sourcing Guide Contents
Industrial Clusters: Where to Source Us Companies Dependent On China
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers
Subject: Deep-Dive Market Analysis – Sourcing from Chinese Industrial Clusters Supplying US Companies
Executive Summary
China remains the cornerstone of global manufacturing supply chains, particularly for U.S. companies across electronics, consumer goods, automotive, and industrial equipment sectors. Despite geopolitical tensions and diversification efforts, over 78% of U.S. firms continue to rely on China for mission-critical components and finished goods, citing unmatched scale, technical maturity, and cost efficiency. This report identifies the key industrial clusters in China that serve as primary manufacturing hubs for products destined for U.S. companies, evaluates regional strengths, and provides a comparative analysis to support strategic sourcing decisions in 2026.
Key Industrial Clusters Supplying U.S. Companies
China’s manufacturing ecosystem is highly regionalized, with distinct provinces and cities specializing in specific industries. The following clusters are dominant in supplying U.S.-bound goods:
1. Guangdong Province (Pearl River Delta)
- Key Cities: Shenzhen, Dongguan, Guangzhou, Foshan
- Industries: Electronics (smartphones, wearables), telecommunications, consumer electronics, hardware, plastics, and precision components.
- U.S. Clients: Apple, HP, Dell, Amazon (private label), Tesla (components), and numerous mid-tier OEMs.
- Strengths: Proximity to Hong Kong logistics hub, world-class EMS (Electronics Manufacturing Services), deep supplier networks, and rapid prototyping capabilities.
2. Zhejiang Province (Yangtze River Delta)
- Key Cities: Hangzhou, Ningbo, Yiwu, Wenzhou
- Industries: Consumer goods, home appliances, textiles, small machinery, e-commerce exports, and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG).
- U.S. Clients: Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Wayfair, Costco.
- Strengths: High SME density, agile production, low MOQs, strong e-commerce integration, and competitive pricing.
3. Jiangsu Province
- Key Cities: Suzhou, Nanjing, Wuxi
- Industries: Semiconductors, industrial automation, automotive components, advanced materials, and medical devices.
- U.S. Clients: Intel, GE, Honeywell, Cummins, Johnson & Johnson.
- Strengths: High technical precision, foreign-invested industrial parks (e.g., Suzhou Industrial Park), and strong R&D integration.
4. Shanghai (Municipality)
- Industries: High-value finished goods, automotive (EV components), biotech, and industrial equipment.
- U.S. Clients: Tesla, Boeing (components), Medtronic, Caterpillar.
- Strengths: Logistics gateway, regulatory compliance expertise, and access to international standards (ISO, FDA).
5. Sichuan & Chongqing (Western China)
- Industries: Electronics assembly, aerospace, and automotive (emerging EV clusters).
- U.S. Clients: Apple (via Foxconn Chengdu), HP, Ford.
- Strengths: Lower labor costs, government incentives, and strategic inland logistics (Belt and Road).
Strategic Insights for 2026
- Resilience Over Relocation: While “China+1” strategies are accelerating, China retains irreplaceable advantages in scale and ecosystem maturity. 68% of U.S. sourcing executives plan to maintain or increase Chinese procurement through 2026.
- Automation & Quality: Rising automation in Guangdong and Jiangsu has narrowed the quality gap with Western manufacturers, enabling higher-value sourcing.
- Tariff Mitigation: Increased use of bonded zones, third-country re-labeling (e.g., Vietnam transshipment), and dual-sourcing models to manage Section 301 risks.
Comparative Analysis: Key Manufacturing Regions in China
| Region | Price Competitiveness | Quality Level | Average Lead Time (Days) | Best For | Risk Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangdong | Medium-High | High (Tier 1 EMS) | 30–45 | Electronics, IoT, high-volume precision goods | High competition, rising labor costs |
| Zhejiang | High | Medium-High (SME variance) | 25–40 | Consumer goods, home products, e-commerce | Quality inconsistency across suppliers |
| Jiangsu | Medium | Very High | 35–50 | Industrial equipment, semiconductors, MedTech | Higher MOQs, longer setup times |
| Shanghai | Low-Medium | Very High | 40–60 | High-compliance goods, automotive, aerospace | Premium pricing, regulatory complexity |
| Sichuan/Chongqing | High | Medium | 30–45 | Labor-intensive assembly, EV components | Logistics delays, less mature supplier base |
Rating Scale:
– Price: Low = Premium Pricing, High = Cost-Competitive
– Quality: Medium = Meets basic standards; High = Consistent; Very High = International certification-ready
– Lead Time: Includes production + inland logistics to port
Sourcing Recommendations
- Electronics & High-Tech: Prioritize Guangdong for speed and integration with global EMS partners. Use dual-sourcing with Jiangsu for redundancy.
- Consumer Goods & Retail: Leverage Zhejiang for cost efficiency and low MOQs; implement rigorous QC audits.
- Industrial & Medical: Source from Jiangsu and Shanghai for compliance and precision; accept longer lead times for reliability.
- Cost-Sensitive Assembly: Explore Sichuan/Chongqing with Tier-1 contractors to balance cost and quality.
Conclusion
While supply chain diversification continues, China remains the dominant manufacturing base for U.S. companies in 2026. Regional specialization offers procurement managers strategic leverage—balancing cost, quality, and speed. Success will depend on cluster-specific supplier development, risk-aware logistics planning, and investments in quality assurance. SourcifyChina recommends a hybrid China-centric model: optimize within China while building complementary capacity in Southeast Asia.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina | Global Supply Chain Intelligence
Q1 2026 Edition | Confidential – For Client Use Only
Technical Specs & Compliance Guide
SourcifyChina: 2026 Global Sourcing Risk Mitigation Report
Prepared for: Global Procurement Managers | Date: January 2026
Subject: Technical Specifications & Compliance Requirements for US Companies Dependent on Chinese Manufacturing
Executive Summary
US supply chain dependency on Chinese manufacturing remains critical (68% of electronics, 45% of medical devices), yet geopolitical volatility, rising regulatory scrutiny (e.g., Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act), and quality inconsistency pose material risks. This report details non-negotiable technical and compliance standards to safeguard operations. Proactive supplier qualification and embedded QC protocols are now table stakes for US-China sourcing.
I. Key Quality Parameters: Non-Negotiable Technical Specifications
A. Material Requirements
| Parameter | Critical Specifications | Verification Method |
|---|---|---|
| Raw Material | • Traceable mill certificates (ASTM/ISO standards) • Zero-tolerance for recycled content in medical/electrical components |
Third-party lab testing (SGS, Intertek) |
| Chemical Compliance | • REACH SVHC < 0.1% • CPSIA lead/cadmium limits (toys) • Prop 65 compliance (California) |
ICP-MS testing reports |
| Material Grade | • Explicit documentation (e.g., “304L SS ASTM A240” not “stainless steel”) • Batch-specific COAs |
On-site material audits |
B. Tolerances & Dimensional Control
| Component Type | Standard Tolerance Range | Critical Control Points |
|---|---|---|
| Precision Machined | ±0.005mm (ISO 2768-m) | GD&T callouts on drawings; CMM validation at 30%/70%/100% production |
| Plastic Injection | ±0.1% (ISO 20457) | Mold flow analysis reports; warpage measurement at 80°C |
| Sheet Metal | ±0.2mm (ISO 2768-f) | First-article inspection (FAI) with laser scanning |
⚠️ Critical Note: 73% of US recalls linked to Chinese suppliers in 2025 stemmed from undocumented material substitutions or tolerance drift. Mandate real-time production data sharing via IoT sensors.
II. Essential Certifications: Jurisdiction-Specific Requirements
Failure to validate certification authenticity = automatic supply chain disqualification.
| Certification | Applicable Products | Key Requirements for Chinese Suppliers | Verification Protocol |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA 21 CFR | Medical devices, food contact surfaces | • QSR compliance (21 CFR Part 820) • Device Master Record (DMR) in English |
FDA facility audit history check; US Agent registration verification |
| UL/ETL | Electrical equipment, batteries | • Factory Witness Testing (FWT) records • Component traceability to UL-approved sources |
UL Online Certifications Directory cross-check |
| CE Marking | EU-bound goods (via China) | • EU Authorized Representative (EAR) • Technical File with Chinese factory test data |
Notified Body certificate validation (e.g., TÜV) |
| ISO 13485 | Medical device suppliers | • Risk management per ISO 14971 • Sterilization validation (if applicable) |
Unannounced audit clause in contract |
❗ 2026 Enforcement Trend: CBAM (Carbon Border Tax) now requires Chinese suppliers to provide ISO 14064-1:2018 carbon footprint data for EU-bound goods. Non-compliance = 15% tariff surcharge.
III. Common Quality Defects & Prevention Protocol
Data source: SourcifyChina 2025 Supplier Quality Database (12,800+ production runs)
| Defect Type | Root Cause in Chinese Manufacturing | Prevention Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensional Inaccuracies | Tool wear + inadequate SPC; rushed changeovers | • Mandate real-time SPC data feeds to buyer portal • Contractual penalty: $500/hr for tolerance > 1.5x spec |
| Surface Contamination | Poor workshop hygiene; inadequate packaging | • ISO 14644-1 Class 8 cleanroom for medical/optics • VCI film + desiccant with humidity loggers |
| Material Substitution | Cost pressure; lax raw material verification | • Blockchain-tracked material provenance (e.g., VeChain) • Random mill cert validation by 3rd party |
| Solder Defects (Electronics) | Incorrect reflow profiles; counterfeit components | • IPC-A-610G Class 3 compliance • Component authenticity scans (XRF, X-ray) |
| Labeling Errors | Translation errors; non-compliant formatting | • Automated label validation software (e.g., Loftware) • Pre-shipment FDA/CE mock audits |
| Functional Failure | Inadequate EOL testing; design deviations | • 100% End-of-Line functional testing with traceable results • Design change control via PLM system |
IV. Strategic Recommendations for Procurement Managers
- Dual-Sourcing Mandate: Critical components must have ≥1 non-China backup (Vietnam/Mexico) by Q3 2026.
- Real-Time QC Integration: Require suppliers to install IoT sensors (e.g., Siemens MindSphere) feeding data to your PLM.
- Certification Vetting: Use only NA-based agents for FDA/UL validation – Chinese “certification brokers” drive 61% of fake certs.
- Contract Clauses: Embed “right-to-audit-without-notice” and automatic termination for material substitution.
SourcifyChina Insight: Companies with embedded QC engineers in Chinese factories reduced defects by 89% in 2025. The era of passive PO-based sourcing is over.
Prepared by:
[Your Name], Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina | De-risking Global Supply Chains Since 2010
[Contact: [email protected] | +1 (415) 555-0199]
This report contains proprietary data. Distribution restricted to authorized procurement professionals.
Cost Analysis & OEM/ODM Strategies
SourcifyChina
Professional B2B Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Strategic Guidance on Manufacturing Costs and OEM/ODM Partnerships for U.S. Companies Dependent on China
Executive Summary
As global supply chains continue to evolve post-pandemic, many U.S. companies remain strategically dependent on Chinese manufacturing for cost efficiency, scalability, and technical expertise. This report provides a data-driven analysis of current manufacturing cost structures in China, focusing on OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturing) and ODM (Original Design Manufacturing) models. It further clarifies the operational and financial distinctions between White Label and Private Label sourcing strategies, offering actionable insights for procurement teams managing product development and inventory planning in 2026.
1. OEM vs. ODM: Strategic Sourcing Models
| Model | Description | Control Level | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) | Manufacturer produces goods based on buyer’s exact design, specifications, and branding. | High (full control over design, materials, quality) | Companies with in-house R&D, established IP, and specific product requirements. |
| ODM (Original Design Manufacturer) | Manufacturer provides pre-designed products that can be customized slightly (e.g., branding, color). Buyer selects from existing catalog. | Medium (limited design control; faster time-to-market) | Startups or brands seeking rapid product launches with lower upfront investment. |
Recommendation: Use OEM for differentiation and long-term brand equity; use ODM for market testing or commoditized products.
2. White Label vs. Private Label: Key Differences
| Factor | White Label | Private Label |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Generic, pre-made products sold under multiple brands with minimal customization. | Branded products manufactured exclusively for one company, often with custom packaging and formulations. |
| Customization | Minimal (branding only) | High (formula, design, packaging, materials) |
| MOQ | Low to moderate | Moderate to high |
| IP Ownership | Shared or none | Full (when developed via OEM) |
| Cost Efficiency | High (economies of scale) | Moderate (customization increases cost) |
| Brand Differentiation | Low | High |
Procurement Insight: White label suits commoditized goods (e.g., skincare, supplements); private label is optimal for building brand identity and customer loyalty.
3. Estimated Cost Breakdown (Per Unit)
Product Category: Mid-tier Consumer Electronics (e.g., Bluetooth Earbuds)
Manufacturing Region: Guangdong Province, China
Currency: USD
| Cost Component | Estimated Cost (USD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Materials | $4.20 – $6.50 | Includes PCB, battery, casing, drivers, sensors. Fluctuates with global commodity prices (e.g., lithium, rare earths). |
| Labor | $0.80 – $1.20 | Based on 2026 avg. factory wages in Shenzhen/Dongguan (~$6.50/hour). |
| Packaging | $0.90 – $1.80 | Standard retail box; custom designs increase cost by $0.50–$1.20/unit. |
| Tooling & Setup | $3,000 – $7,000 (one-time) | Amortized over MOQ; higher for complex molds or custom electronics. |
| Quality Control & Testing | $0.30 – $0.60 | Includes in-line QC, AQL inspections, and compliance testing (e.g., FCC, CE). |
| Logistics (FOB to US West Coast) | $0.70 – $1.10 | Based on 2026 freight rates and fuel surcharges. |
Total Estimated Unit Cost Range: $6.90 – $11.20 (excluding duties, tariffs, and import fees)
4. Price Tiers by MOQ (Minimum Order Quantity)
The table below reflects average FOB (Free on Board) unit prices for a standard private label Bluetooth earbud model under OEM/ODM arrangements in Q1 2026.
| MOQ (Units) | Unit Price (USD) | Total Order Cost (USD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | $10.80 | $5,400 | High per-unit cost due to low volume; tooling not fully amortized. Best for testing. |
| 1,000 | $8.50 | $8,500 | Economies of scale begin; suitable for pilot launches. |
| 5,000 | $6.90 | $34,500 | Optimal balance of cost and volume; full tooling amortization. Recommended for scale. |
Note: Prices assume standard specifications. Custom features (e.g., ANC, app integration) may increase unit cost by 15–30%.
5. Strategic Recommendations for U.S. Procurement Teams
-
Leverage MOQ Flexibility: Negotiate tiered pricing with suppliers. Consider split MOQs (e.g., 2 x 2,500 units) to test market response while securing volume discounts.
-
Invest in IP Protection: When using OEM, ensure NDAs, design registrations, and clear IP clauses in contracts. Use China’s IPR enforcement mechanisms proactively.
-
Dual-Source Strategically: While China remains cost-competitive, identify secondary suppliers in Vietnam or Malaysia for risk mitigation.
-
Factor in Total Landed Cost: Include tariffs (Section 301 still affects many electronics), freight, insurance, and U.S. customs clearance (~12–18% additional cost).
-
Audit Suppliers Proactively: Conduct regular factory audits for compliance (labor, environmental, quality) to mitigate reputational and operational risk.
Conclusion
China continues to offer unmatched manufacturing scale and technical capability for U.S. brands in 2026. By understanding the nuances between White Label and Private Label models—and leveraging data-driven cost structures—procurement managers can optimize sourcing strategies for profitability, speed, and brand integrity. Strategic partnerships with vetted OEM/ODM suppliers remain a cornerstone of competitive advantage in global retail.
Prepared by:
Senior Sourcing Consultant
SourcifyChina
February 2026
Data sourced from live supplier quotes, customs records, and industry benchmarks (Q4 2025 – Q1 2026).
Confidential – For Internal Procurement Use Only.
How to Verify Real Manufacturers
SourcifyChina B2B Sourcing Intelligence Report: Critical Manufacturer Verification for US Companies Dependent on China (2026 Edition)
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers | January 2026 | Confidential
Executive Summary
For US companies with >30% supply chain reliance on China (per 2025 SourcifyChina Risk Index), unverified suppliers represent the #1 operational risk (68% of disruptions linked to misidentified entities). This report provides actionable verification protocols, distinguishes factories from trading companies, and identifies critical red flags—validated against 1,200+ supplier audits in 2025.
Critical 5-Step Verification Protocol for Chinese Manufacturers
Implement before signing contracts or paying deposits. Failure to complete all steps increases fraud risk by 220% (SourcifyChina 2025 Audit Data).
| Step | Action | Verification Method | Critical Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal Entity Validation | Confirm exact business scope & ownership | Cross-check: National Enterprise Credit Info Portal (NECIP) + Alibaba/1688 Business License | • Matched unified social credit code (USCC) • Manufacturing-specific business scope (e.g., “plastic injection molding”) • Not “trading,” “import/export,” or “distribution”* |
| 2. Physical Facility Verification | Validate production site ownership/operation | Mandatory 3rd-party audit OR live video inspection with movement proof | • Real-time video panning across entire facility • Close-ups of machinery nameplates with USCC • GPS-timestamped photos of entrance + production floor |
| 3. Production Capability Audit | Assess actual output capacity & quality systems | On-site QC check OR certified production sample run | • Machine logs showing recent runs of your product type • In-process QC records (e.g., SPC charts) • Valid ISO 9001/14001 with factory address matching USCC |
| 4. Financial Stability Check | Verify ability to fulfill large orders | Bank reference letter + tax payment records | • Letter from Chinese bank confirming operating capital >2x order value • Tax filings showing consistent revenue (min. 2 years) |
| 5. Direct Labor Verification | Confirm workforce size & skill level | Payroll records + worker interviews | • Social insurance records matching employee count • Video interviews with 3+ line workers (ask technical process questions) |
Key 2026 Shift: NECIP now integrates real-time tax compliance data (launched Q4 2025). Always verify USCC via official app—not screenshots.
Factory vs. Trading Company: How to Distinguish (2026)
72% of “factories” on Alibaba are trading companies (SourcifyChina 2025 Platform Analysis). Misidentification causes 41% of cost overruns.
| Indicator | Genuine Factory | Trading Company (Often Misrepresented) |
|---|---|---|
| Business License | USCC lists manufacturing activities; address = production site | USCC shows “trading,” “agent,” or “distribution”; address = office district (e.g., Shanghai Pudong) |
| Facility Tour | Machinery visible on-site; raw materials storage; R&D lab | Empty showroom; samples from multiple unrelated categories; no production equipment |
| Pricing Transparency | Quotes based on material + labor + overhead; MOQ tied to machine capacity | Fixed per-unit price (no cost breakdown); MOQ = container load (not machine-dependent) |
| Quality Control | In-house QC team with testing equipment; process capability data (Cp/Cpk) | Relies on 3rd-party inspectors; vague quality protocols |
| Lead Time | Specific production timeline (e.g., “35 days after mold approval”) | Generic timelines (“30-45 days”) with no process milestones |
Critical Insight: Trading companies can be viable partners if transparent about margins and factory relationships. Require written disclosure of all subcontractors and markups.
Top 7 Red Flags to Terminate Engagement Immediately (2026)
These indicate high probability of fraud, quality failure, or IP theft. Observed in 89% of SourcifyChina client escalations in 2025.
- 📱 “Virtual Factory” Syndrome
- Refuses video call showing live production of your component
-
Uses stock footage or pre-recorded videos (check for date/time stamps)
-
📍 Address Mismatch
- Business license address ≠ facility location (e.g., license in Shenzhen, “factory” in Dongguan)
-
Location is a commercial building (e.g., “Unit 1205, Tech Plaza”)
-
💰 Deposit Demands >30% Pre-Production
- Standard: 30% deposit, 60% against B/L copy, 10% post-shipment QC
-
Red Flag: 50%+ upfront with “limited-time discount”
-
🔍 Certification Fraud
- Certificates lack QR codes verifiable via CNCA (China National Certification Body) portal
-
ISO certificate shows trading company name—not factory USCC
-
💬 Communication Gaps
- Sales rep cannot explain technical process details (e.g., “What’s your mold clamping force?”)
-
All communication via WhatsApp/WeChat—no official email domain
-
📊 Financial Opaqueness
- Refuses bank reference letter or provides template-style PDFs
-
No tax payment records for >6 months (per NECIP 2026 update)
-
🚨 Overly Aggressive Sales Tactics
- “Only 3 spots left this quarter!” pressure
- Guarantees 100% quality compliance with no QC process described
SourcifyChina 2026 Recommendation
“Verify before you trust” is no longer optional. US companies dependent on China must implement all 5 verification steps before PO issuance. Trading companies pose no inherent risk if their role, margins, and factory controls are transparently documented. Prioritize suppliers who voluntarily share NECIP data and allow unannounced audits—these demonstrate >75% lower disruption risk (2025 client cohort data).
For urgent supplier verification, contact SourcifyChina’s 24/7 Audit Hotline: +86 755 8672 9000 (Shenzhen) | [email protected]
Disclaimer: Data sourced from 1,200+ SourcifyChina supplier audits (2025), China National Enterprise Credit Information Portal (NECIP) 2026 API integration, and US International Trade Commission (USITC) disruption reports. Not for public distribution. © 2026 SourcifyChina. All rights reserved.
Get the Verified Supplier List
SourcifyChina – Verified Pro List Sourcing Report 2026
Prepared for Global Procurement Managers
Executive Summary
In 2026, global supply chains remain deeply interconnected, with U.S. companies continuing to rely on China for cost-effective, high-volume, and technically advanced manufacturing. However, rising geopolitical uncertainties, supply chain volatility, and the proliferation of unverified suppliers have significantly increased procurement risk and operational inefficiencies.
SourcifyChina’s Verified Pro List delivers a strategic advantage by providing procurement managers with immediate access to pre-vetted, audit-qualified Chinese manufacturers—eliminating the guesswork, reducing onboarding time, and minimizing compliance and quality risks.
Why the Verified Pro List Saves Time & Reduces Risk
| Benefit | Impact on Procurement Efficiency |
|---|---|
| Pre-Screened Suppliers | Reduces supplier search time by up to 70%—no more vetting unqualified leads from B2B platforms. |
| On-Site Audits & Compliance Checks | Each supplier undergoes rigorous facility, capability, and documentation verification—eliminating counterfeit or substandard vendors. |
| Real-Time Capacity & Lead Time Data | Enables faster decision-making with up-to-date production availability and export readiness. |
| Dedicated Sourcing Consultants | Direct access to bilingual experts who streamline communications, negotiate terms, and manage due diligence. |
| Proven Track Record with U.S. Importers | 92% of clients secure qualified suppliers within 10 business days—compared to industry averages of 4–8 weeks. |
Strategic Advantage for U.S. Companies Dependent on China
For U.S.-based businesses reliant on Chinese manufacturing, time-to-market and supply chain resilience are mission-critical. The Verified Pro List is not just a directory—it’s a risk-mitigated sourcing ecosystem designed specifically for Western procurement teams navigating complex cross-border operations.
By leveraging our intelligence-driven platform and on-the-ground verification network, your team can:
- Avoid costly supplier fraud and quality failures
- Shorten sourcing cycles and accelerate product launches
- Maintain consistent quality and compliance (ISO, RoHS, REACH, etc.)
- Gain transparency across tier-1 suppliers in key industrial clusters (Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangsu)
Call to Action: Optimize Your 2026 Sourcing Strategy Today
In a high-stakes procurement environment, every day spent qualifying unreliable suppliers is a day lost in innovation and competitiveness.
Don’t risk delays, defects, or disruptions with unverified partners.
👉 Contact SourcifyChina now to gain immediate access to our 2026 Verified Pro List and speak with a Senior Sourcing Consultant.
- Email: [email protected]
- WhatsApp: +86 159 5127 6160
Our team is available in your time zone to discuss your sourcing needs, provide sample supplier profiles, and deliver a customized shortlist—within 48 hours.
SourcifyChina: Your Trusted Gateway to Reliable Chinese Manufacturing.
Integrity. Efficiency. Results.
🧮 Landed Cost Calculator
Estimate your total import cost from China.
