LandedFees
All guides/Guides

Origin Scenario Analysis: Model Landed Cost Across 20 Sourcing Lanes in One Click

Sourcing decisions in 2026 are duty decisions. Section 301, Section 232, Section 122, USMCA, KORUS, and every other program interact differently by origin. Origin scenario analysis compares landed cost across up to 20 sourcing countries for one HS code and one destination in a single view, so procurement can price the tariff dimension into supplier RFQs before committing volume.

Updated 2026-08-227 min read
sourcingcomparescenariolanded-cost

Try the calculator

Run a real calculation for this lane in under a minute. Free, no card.

Open calculator

Origin Scenario Analysis: Model Landed Cost Across 20 Sourcing Lanes in One Click

Sourcing decisions in 2026 are duty decisions. Section 301 at 25 percent on China origin, Section 232 at 50 percent on aluminum smelted anywhere outside Canadian TRQ, Section 122 reciprocal at 10 percent on almost every non-USMCA entry, and the growing patchwork of US-Colombia, KORUS, US-Chile, DR-CAFTA preferences make procurement's traditional FOB-price comparison misleading. A 6 percent unit-cost delta between a Chinese supplier and a Mexican one flips into a 30 percent landed-cost delta after tariffs land.

Origin scenario analysis is the tool procurement runs before committing volume: side-by-side landed cost across up to 20 candidate origins for one HS code and one destination, in a single view. Open the compare tool at landedfees.com/compare.

Why FOB-price comparisons are misleading

An RFQ with FOB prices from six candidate suppliers looks like a simple ranking exercise. In 2026 it usually is not, for four reasons:

One: duty stacks vary by 20 to 50 percentage points across origins. A Chinese-origin electronics good pays MFN plus Section 301 plus Section 122. A Vietnamese-origin equivalent pays MFN plus Section 122 only. A Mexican-origin USMCA-qualifying good pays 0 percent. The FOB delta between the three is usually less than 10 percent. The landed delta is 40 percent or more.

Two: FTA preferences require the good to qualify. A Mexican supplier's FOB price includes their production cost. The USMCA preferential rate is only available if the good satisfies the USMCA rules of origin. If the Mexican production is 90 percent Chinese components with minor assembly, the USMCA claim fails and the entry pays Column 1 rates. Origin scenario analysis models this by flagging FTA-eligibility conditional on rules of origin qualification.

Three: freight lanes vary. Vietnam to Long Beach ocean is different from China to Long Beach ocean is different from Mexico truck to Laredo. Ocean rates spike on Chinese New Year, US harvest season, Red Sea disruptions. Truck rates depend on DAT market pricing on the lane. Air rates spike for consumer electronics launches.

Four: fees and taxes vary by mode. Ocean cargo pays HMF (0.125 percent). Air does not. Truck across USMCA borders pays neither HMF nor most agricultural fees. Bonded warehouse entries defer fees. FTZ entries have different fee treatment.

What the compare tool models

For a single HS code and one destination country, the compare tool stacks:

  • MFN base duty from the destination country tariff schedule (HTSUS for US, TARIC for EU, similar for other destinations).
  • Applicable preferential rate from the Special column if the origin has an active FTA with the destination and the good qualifies under rules of origin.
  • Chapter 99 add-ons for US destinations: Section 232 (steel, aluminum, copper), Section 301 for China origin, Section 122 reciprocal, Section 338 Canada surcharge, IEEPA fentanyl for Canada and Mexico.
  • Equivalent for EU destinations: active anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders by origin, CBAM inclusion for iron/steel/aluminum/fertilizer/cement/hydrogen/electricity chapters.
  • User fees at destination: MPF and HMF for US, VAT for EU, GST for other destinations, local excise where applicable.
  • Freight from origin using current Freightos Baltic Index for ocean, IATA averages for air, DAT market rates for truck.
  • Origin-country export costs: export documentation fees, port charges, and any origin-side VAT rebate or duty drawback that offsets landed cost.

The result is a per-country landed cost breakdown that procurement can rank by total delivered cost.

Typical scenario: apparel sourcing across 12 Asian countries

A US apparel importer sourcing a knit polyester t-shirt (HTS 6109.90.10, MFN 32 percent, Section 301 List 4A at 7.5 percent for China) considers 12 candidate origins: CN, VN, BD, ID, TH, MY, KH, PH, IN, PK, LK, MM.

The compare tool ranks by landed cost per unit. Key observations:

  • China origin carries Section 301 List 4A at 7.5 percent plus Section 122 at 10 percent plus MFN 32 percent, roughly 49.5 percent total ad valorem.
  • Vietnam and other non-China Asian origins carry MFN 32 percent plus Section 122 at 10 percent, roughly 42 percent total ad valorem.
  • Bangladesh carries the same 42 percent nominal but a higher freight cost per unit due to lower container density on the lane.
  • No FTA preference applies to any of the 12 origins on this HS. Every source pays MFN.

Ranking flips based on FOB price. If China's FOB is 3.20 USD per unit and Vietnam's is 3.65 USD, China's landed cost is 4.78 USD and Vietnam's is 5.18 USD. Vietnam is 8 percent more expensive delivered despite the tariff advantage on paper.

Typical scenario: aluminum extrusion, 5 near-shore vs 3 Asian

A US building materials wholesaler sourcing aluminum extrusion (HTS 7604.29, MFN 5 percent, Section 232 50 percent on Chinese-smelt aluminum, USMCA 0 percent) considers 8 candidate origins: MX (Canadian-smelt billet), MX (Chinese-smelt billet), CA (Canadian-smelt billet), CR (Chinese-smelt billet), HN (Chinese-smelt billet), CN, VN (Chinese-smelt billet), TH (Chinese-smelt billet).

The compare tool applies the smelt-and-cast origin rule to Section 232. Key observations:

  • MX with Canadian-smelt billet and USMCA-qualifying finishing: 0 percent duty. Section 232 does not apply because Canadian TRQ covers the smelt origin.
  • MX with Chinese-smelt billet: 50 percent Section 232 applies (smelt origin, not finish origin). USMCA on the finishing does not shield.
  • CA with Canadian-smelt billet: same as MX Canadian-smelt, 0 percent.
  • CR, HN with Chinese-smelt billet: 50 percent Section 232 plus MFN 5 percent plus Section 122 (suppressed by 232) equals 55 percent.
  • CN, VN, TH with Chinese-smelt billet: same 55 percent stack.

The compare tool surfaces the smelt-and-cast dimension as a separate column so procurement can request Canadian-smelt or US-smelt billet from the near-shore extruders and unlock the USMCA preference.

Typical scenario: consumer electronics, US vs EU destinations

The same HS code often produces very different rankings across destination countries. A consumer electronic (HTS 8517.13, smartphones) from various Asian origins:

For US destination:

  • CN origin: 0 percent MFN plus Section 301 List 3 at 25 percent plus Section 122 at 10 percent = 35 percent.
  • VN, TH, MY origins: 0 percent MFN plus Section 122 at 10 percent = 10 percent.
  • KR origin: 0 percent MFN under KORUS preference = 0 percent.

For EU destination (same product):

  • CN origin: 0 percent MFN, no equivalent to Section 301 or Section 122 = 0 percent, plus VAT at destination member state rate.
  • VN origin: 0 percent MFN under EU-Vietnam FTA = 0 percent, plus VAT.
  • KR origin: 0 percent MFN under EU-Korea FTA = 0 percent, plus VAT.

The US comparison spreads sourcing decisions by 35 percentage points. The EU comparison spreads by 0. Same product, very different sourcing conclusions.

Detection: what the LandedFees engine surfaces as risk

Beyond the ranking, the compare tool flags scenario risks:

  • FTA quota exhaustion: Canadian aluminum TRQ fill rate for the current quarter. If the quota is 80 percent filled, extrusion booked late in the quarter may fall outside.
  • Rules of origin fragility: an FTA-qualifying good with narrow rule of origin margin (e.g., regional value content at 62 percent when the requirement is 60 percent) flags as high-risk because any input mix change fails the RVC test.
  • Pending tariff actions: Section 232 country arrangement renegotiations, Section 301 exclusion renewals, USMCA panel decisions all carry pending-action flags with the scenario impact modeled.
  • Currency exposure: FOB in local currency vs USD landed cost carries FX assumption disclosure.

From compare to duty forecast

The compare tool is the point-in-time snapshot. For forward-looking scenario planning (What if Section 232 raises to 75 percent? What if Section 301 exclusions expire?), the duty forecast tool runs the same origin scenarios under multiple future tariff states. See duty stack forecast: model S232 raises and S301 tier changes.

Save and re-run scenarios for RFQ cycles

Signed-in users can save named scenarios and re-run against updated tariff data. This is the standard workflow for procurement's quarterly RFQ cycle:

  • Q1 RFQ: save scenarios for the 12 candidate origins at Q1 tariff state.
  • Q2: re-run against Q2 tariff state (e.g., Section 232 raises, quota renewals). Deltas between Q1 and Q2 landed costs surface the tariff risk per origin.
  • Q3: re-run against Q3 state, incorporating any USMCA panel outcomes or Section 301 exclusion changes.

Save history is persistent per account and exportable to CSV for procurement's supplier scorecard.

Run origin scenario analysis on your next RFQ

Open landedfees.com/compare, enter your HS code and destination, and add up to 20 candidate origins. The engine returns per-country landed cost with the full duty stack breakdown in one view.

Related guides

Citations

Frequently asked questions

What is origin scenario analysis?

Origin scenario analysis is a side-by-side comparison of full landed cost for a single HS code shipped to a single destination country from multiple candidate origins. The comparison stacks MFN base duty, any applicable preferential rate, Section 232 or equivalent, Section 301 or equivalent, VAT or GST at destination, freight from origin, and destination-country user fees, so procurement can rank suppliers on true landed cost.

How many origins can I compare at once?

The LandedFees compare tool supports up to 20 sourcing countries in a single view. Common groupings: near-shore US alternatives (MX, CA, CR, HN, GT, DO), Asian alternatives to China (VN, TH, MY, ID, IN, BD, KH, PH), and European alternatives (DE, IT, PL, RO, TR).

Does the comparison account for USMCA and other FTA preferences?

Yes. The engine cross-references each origin against active US FTA partnerships and applies the preferential rate from the HTSUS Special column where the good qualifies under the rules of origin. USMCA, KORUS, US-Chile, US-Colombia, US-Panama, US-Peru, DR-CAFTA, US-Singapore, US-Australia, US-Morocco, US-Bahrain, US-Oman are all covered.

How are freight costs estimated?

Ocean freight uses the current Freightos Baltic Index rates by lane. Air freight uses IATA-published tariff averages. Truck freight for near-shore lanes uses lane-specific DAT market rate benchmarks. All rates carry a last-updated timestamp and importers can override with their own contracted rates for higher accuracy.

Can I save scenarios for later comparison?

Yes. Signed-in users can save scenarios by name and re-run against updated tariff data. This is the standard workflow for RFQ cycles where the comparison needs to be re-run each time a tariff change hits (Section 232 rate change, Section 301 exclusion expiration, USMCA quota fill).

Ready to calculate?

Get a real number for your shipment in under a minute.

Free, no card, full breakdown of duty, VAT, freight, and fees.

Try the calculator Look up an HS code

Related guides

Duty Stack Forecast: Model Section 232 Raises and Section 301 Tier Changes Before They Hit

Tariff volatility in 2026 is a planning problem, not a compliance problem. Duty stack forecast models the impact of pending Section 232 raises, Section 301 tier changes, Section 122 sunset scenarios, and USMCA quota exhaustion on your entry portfolio 60 to 180 days out, so procurement can hedge before the proclamation lands.

Regulatory Explainers

Wrong AD/CVD Scope on Your Entries: Detection and 19 USC 1520(d) Recovery

Anti-dumping and countervailing duty scope errors are the highest-dollar liquidation surprise in the US import stack. This guide walks through scope determination mechanics, the detection patterns the LandedFees engine flags, and the four post-entry recovery mechanisms in order of applicability.

Undervaluation Red Flags: Benchmark Invoices Against FRED PPI Before CBP Does

CBP valuation enforcement runs on statistical anomaly detection at scale. If your invoice unit price is more than one standard deviation below the industry Producer Price Index benchmark, an Automated Targeting System flag is likely. Here is how the LandedFees engine benchmarks invoice values against FRED PPI series and factory-quoted comparables so importers see the flag before CBP does.

Section 338 Canada T-Minus 1: ACE Summary Acceptance vs 3461 Transmission, 19 CFR 141.68 Timing Mechanic, and the 500k CIF Ontario Furniture Worked Example

T-1 to the Aug 22 12:01 AM EDT Section 338 Canada cliff. Deep dive on 19 CFR 141.68 time-of-entry, ACE Summary Acceptance latency, and defensive Immediate Transmission election.