Who Actually Pays the Tariff on Cheap Chinese Shipments?

The European Commission has fallen into a remarkable communications trap. It has even had to delete its own social media posts.

When Donald Trump imposes tariffs, the Commission argues they are “a tax on American consumers”. However, when Brussels imposes one itself – in this case, a €3 ($3.50) tariff on cheap shipments from Chinese e-commerce platforms – “it is not a tax on consumers”.

The European Commission even deleted a post on social media platform X claiming that EU consumers would not pay the tariffs because the e-commerce platforms would bear the cost. Yet the underlying economic logic remains the same whether the tariffs are imposed by Washington or Brussels.

On 18 September last year, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen neatly summed up the essence of tariffs in a speech to German industrialists. She argued that Trump's tariffs are, above all, a tax on American consumers. Although the importer formally pays the tariff, market forces typically pass much of that cost on through higher prices.

When the EU Changes Its Vocabulary

The same logic applies to the EU's new tariff on low-value shipments from platforms such as Temu, Shein and AliExpress. Brussels argues that the €3 charge is not a tax on consumers because it is formally paid by the seller, importer or customs declarant. Legally and technically, that is correct.

From an economic perspective, the claim is misleading. Any business facing higher government-imposed costs must decide how much to pass on to customers, how much to absorb through lower margins and how much to shift onto suppliers. For goods costing only a few euros, a €3 surcharge is substantial, making it difficult to avoid higher prices for consumers.

At the same time, the European Commission cannot credibly argue that Trump's tariffs are a tax on consumers while portraying the EU's own tariffs as merely a neutral policy tool for correcting the market.

This double standard is politically risky. The European Union has long criticized US protectionism and presented itself as a champion of open trade. Yet the moment it introduces tariffs of its own, its rhetoric changes.

A tax on consumers becomes the removal of an outdated exemption. A protectionist measure becomes a level playing field. Higher prices become an administrative detail.

Tax Wedge

For the Czech and Slovak economies, the implications are significant. Consumers in both countries rely heavily on low-cost Asian marketplaces because, in economies with lower purchasing power than Western Europe, a difference of just a few euros matters.

A €3 customs charge could therefore reduce small impulse purchases and make many products more expensive. At the same time, it could benefit domestic retailers, which must comply with European regulations covering warehousing, customer complaints, taxation and product safety, while Chinese platforms have long benefited from a system designed for a very different era.

From a macroeconomic perspective, the measure is unlikely to generate a significant inflationary shock. Low-value shipments from China account for only a small share of the Czech and Slovak inflation basket. Politically and symbolically, however, the measure matters. It signals that the era of cheap globalized goods arriving without full customs and regulatory oversight is drawing to a close. Europe is moving toward a model in which market protection, consumer safety and industrial policy take precedence over the lowest possible prices.

The reality should be acknowledged openly. A tariff is a tariff. It creates a tax wedge between a foreign seller and a domestic buyer. The burden is ultimately shared according to market power, demand elasticity, competition and profit margins.

It is not true that consumers always bear the full cost. Nor is it true that they bear none of it. The European Commission understands this perfectly well. It relies on exactly the same economic principle when criticizing Trump. It should apply the same logic to its own policies.