Import value jumped over thirty percent while import volume barely moved four percent. That scissors gap is the single most telling signal buried in China's wool textile trade data for the first eight months of 2026. Chinese customs figures put total wool textile raw material and product trade at USD 11.7 billion, up 12.9% year-on-year. But the two directions are driven by entirely different forces: exports by unit price, imports by raw material costs.
Import Side: Price Is the Only Story
Wool and early-processed wool imports reached USD 1.87 billion, up 48.19%, while volume rose just 4.56% to 213,000 tonnes. The average import price works out to USD 8.77 per kilogram, a 41.73% year-on-year increase. In other words, the surge in import value came almost entirely from price, not demand expansion. For downstream mills, this is not a signal of more orders but of passively rising input costs.
The turning point appeared in August. The average wool import price that month was USD 8.96 per kilogram, down 7.5% month-on-month. Other animal fiber import prices also fell 7.5% on the same basis. The rapid cost escalation of previous months finally showed signs of easing. But a single month's decline is not enough to confirm a trend reversal. The supply rhythm of international wool auctions and Australian wool production expectations remain the key variables shaping the fourth-quarter cost baseline.
Export Side: Volume-Value Divergence, Garment Prices Stand Out
Exports totaled USD 8.56 billion, up 6.82%, but the internal structure is clearly split. Apart from woven wool garments, whose export volume fell 9.49% to 11.06 million pieces, all other major wool textile categories saw volume growth. On the price front, export prices for early-processed and mid-to-downstream wool products fluctuated within a range of -5% to 6%, leaving limited room for increases.
What actually held up the export figure was woven wool garments: their average export price reached USD 48.65 per piece, up 18.23% year-on-year. The unit price increase offset part of the volume decline and suggests overseas buyers are more willing to accept higher prices for woven garments than for early-processed products. The logic is not complicated — design, craftsmanship and delivery premiums in finished apparel are far easier for end markets to recognize than those in wool tops or yarn.
Cost Transmission: Who Absorbs the Pressure, Who Has a Buffer
Placing import and export data side by side makes the profit distribution across the chain clear. Raw material prices rose over forty percent, while export prices for most products moved within a band of plus or minus six percent. The difference can only be absorbed by processing links. Early-stage and intermediate goods producers bear the brunt, squeezed from both ends. Garment exporters with design capabilities and the ability to command higher unit prices have relatively more room to buffer.
For buyers, this is a window to reassess supplier structures: raw material prices have eased month-on-month but remain elevated year-on-year, making the timing of price locks and procurement rhythm more important than usual. For factories, a business model that survives solely on processing fees is extremely fragile when raw materials swing violently. Raising product value-added is not a slogan — it is a direct line of defense on the income statement.