2025 U.S. Imports of HTS 7115.90.0530 — Annual Review
This review covers U.S. imports under HTS 7115.90.0530 — the ten-digit statistical breakout for other articles of jewellery and goldsmiths' wares of precious metal or metal clad with precious metal — across the full 2025 calendar year. The figures come from U.S. Customs import records and look at import value, weight in metric tons, unit value, month-to-month movement, where the goods originate, and which ports clear them. Two things show up right away: the trade is overwhelmingly precious metal moving through Swiss refineries and into New York, and almost all of it arrived in the first quarter.
What the year looked like
A first-quarter story. Of the year's $72.06B in imports, January through March accounted for 93.0% ($66.98B); the remaining nine months together came to just $5.08B. Monthly value fell from $28.69B in January to under $1.00B every month from April onward.
One origin dominates. Switzerland supplied 67.7% of value ($48.79B), ahead of Australia (11.9%) and South Africa (5.4%). The top three partners reach 85.1% and the top ten 97.4%.
One port, essentially. New York City cleared 94.8% of import value ($68.32B); Dallas-Fort Worth was a distant second at 4.2%.
Price rose as volume collapsed. Average value per metric ton climbed from about $83.4M/ton in January to $142.2M/ton in December, so the thin second-half flows were higher-value, not lower-value, goods.
1. Monthly Import Data (Jan–Dec 2025)
Monthly CIF value, weight in metric tons, FOB value, transaction count, average unit value (USD per metric ton) and month-over-month (MoM) change.
1.1 Monthly Detail
| Month | CIF (USD) | Weight (t) | FOB (USD) | Txns | Unit $/t | MoM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 28,688,356,543 | 344.1 | 28,687,408,003 | 37 | $83.4M/ton | — |
| 02 | 22,962,853,589 | 266.9 | 22,962,165,628 | 34 | $86.0M/ton | -20.0% |
| 03 | 15,333,409,188 | 170.1 | 15,332,785,904 | 36 | $90.1M/ton | -33.2% |
| 04 | 1,495,481,884 | 15.1 | 1,495,418,863 | 15 | $98.8M/ton | -90.2% |
| 05 | 33,588,409 | 0.3 | 33,582,079 | 8 | $107.3M/ton | -97.8% |
| 06 | 182,133,760 | 1.9 | 182,118,887 | 10 | $97.3M/ton | +442.3% |
| 07 | 280,972,617 | 2.9 | 280,932,629 | 12 | $97.5M/ton | +54.3% |
| 08 | 260,791,494 | 3.4 | 260,765,988 | 11 | $77.5M/ton | -7.2% |
| 09 | 398,731,229 | 5.7 | 398,698,157 | 18 | $70.5M/ton | +52.9% |
| 10 | 948,162,161 | 7.0 | 947,995,955 | 28 | $134.9M/ton | +137.8% |
| 11 | 617,668,405 | 6.3 | 617,632,651 | 17 | $97.4M/ton | -34.9% |
| 12 | 858,863,945 | 6.0 | 858,822,403 | 26 | $142.2M/ton | +39.0% |
| YR | 72,061,013,224 | 829.6 | 72,058,327,147 | 252 | $86.9M/ton | — |
1.2 Quarterly Summary
| Quarter | CIF Value | Weight (t) | FOB | Txns | Unit $/t |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | $66.98B | 781.0 | $66.98B | 107 | $85.8M/ton |
| Q2 | $1.71B | 17.3 | $1.71B | 33 | $98.8M/ton |
| Q3 | $0.94B | 11.9 | $0.94B | 41 | $79.0M/ton |
| Q4 | $2.42B | 19.4 | $2.42B | 71 | $124.9M/ton |
CIF ran from $66.98B in Q1 to $1.71B in Q2, $0.94B in Q3 and $2.42B in Q4. The first half ($68.70B) was roughly twenty times the second ($3.37B). That shape is unusual for a commodity that normally moves steadily through the year; it reads as a front-loaded shipment pattern rather than a smooth annual flow.
1.3 Monthly CIF Import Value, 2025
2. Partner Countries and Entry Ports, 2025
Top 3 Partner Countries
Switzerland (CH) — $48.79B (67.7%)
Australia (AU) — $8.61B (11.9%)
S. Africa (ZA) — $3.89B (5.4%)
Top 3 Entry Ports
NEW YORK CITY, NY — $68.32B (94.8%)
DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX — $3.04B (4.2%)
BUFFALO, NY — $0.46B (0.6%)
Top 6 Partner Countries by Value
| Rank | Country/Region | CIF (USD) | Weight (t) | Unit $/t | Share | Txns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Switzerland (CH) | $48.79B | 562.9 | $86.7M/ton | 67.71% | 47 |
| 2 | Australia (AU) | $8.61B | 106.8 | $80.6M/ton | 11.95% | 13 |
| 3 | S. Africa (ZA) | $3.89B | 43.4 | $89.7M/ton | 5.40% | 6 |
| 4 | Canada (CA) | $2.47B | 15.1 | $163.8M/ton | 3.43% | 49 |
| 5 | Singapore (SG) | $2.00B | 23.8 | $83.9M/ton | 2.77% | 5 |
| 6 | Hong Kong,China (HK) | $1.85B | 23.0 | $80.4M/ton | 2.57% | 5 |
Top 6 Entry Ports by Value
| Rank | Port | CIF (USD) | Weight (t) | Unit $/t | Share | Txns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NEW YORK CITY, NY | $68.32B | 799.2 | $85.5M/ton | 94.81% | 129 |
| 2 | DALLAS-FORT WORTH, TX | $3.04B | 28.8 | $105.6M/ton | 4.21% | 19 |
| 3 | BUFFALO, NY | $0.46B | 0.0 | — | 0.63% | 4 |
| 4 | MIAMI, FL | $0.09B | 1.0 | $87.8M/ton | 0.12% | 3 |
| 5 | OGDENSBURG, NY | $0.08B | 0.0 | — | 0.12% | 2 |
| 6 | LOS ANGELES, CA | $0.06B | 0.5 | $120.3M/ton | 0.08% | 11 |
Top 10 Partner Countries by CIF Value
Top 10 Entry Ports by CIF Value
3. Reading the Numbers
How concentrated this trade really is
Switzerland plus New York City is the whole picture
Switzerland alone is 67.7% of value, and New York City alone is 94.8% of cleared entries. Put together, the top three partners reach 85.1% and the top three ports reach 99.7%. For a $72.06B import line, that is about as single-point as trade gets — the goods, the origin and the gateway all funnel through one channel.
The year was a first-quarter event
January ($28.69B), February ($22.96B) and March ($15.33B) carried 93.0% of annual value. From April the monthly figure never again cleared $1.00B. The data does not say why, but a surge-then-stop profile like this is the signature of deliberate front-loading — stock building or price/tariff positioning ahead of a known change — rather than anything seasonal, since precious-metal articles have no harvest or weather cycle.
Canada is a different animal
Canada shows up at 3.4% of value but at a unit value of $163.8M/ton, roughly double the $86.7M/ton–$89.7M/ton range of Switzerland, Australia and South Africa. A per-ton figure that high points to a different product mix — higher-purity content or platinum-group metals — rather than a simple volume difference. It is the one supplier that does not fit the gold-bullion mould.
Origin and channel detail
Switzerland as the refining gateway
Swiss refineries process the bulk of the world's gold, and that shows here: $48.79B at $86.7M/ton per ton, landed almost entirely through New York. The 47 transactions are large and steady within Q1, consistent with bullion moving from refiner to U.S. financial vaults rather than retail jewellery.
Australia and South Africa are the mine-side suppliers
Australia (11.9%, $80.6M/ton/t) and South Africa (5.4%, $89.7M/ton/t) sit just below Switzerland on unit value, as expected for freshly mined metal. Behind them, Singapore, Hong Kong, France, the UK, Japan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan each hold under 3%, and together the top ten reach 97.4% — there is little room left for newcomers.
New York City is the single chokepoint
New York cleared $68.32B (94.8%) and Dallas-Fort Worth $3.04B (4.2%); every other port is below 1%. Several border points — Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Detroit, Philadelphia — report zero metric tons, meaning they handled negligible weight, probably transhipment or paperwork routing rather than physical metal. If New York's bonded-warehouse or clearance capacity is disrupted, there is no meaningful backup in the data.
4. Trend Assessment
What works in its favour
A reliable anchor. Switzerland and New York are established, high-volume channels; the metal moves through well-worn logistics.
Low freight exposure. FOB and CIF are nearly identical across the board, because the goods are tiny in weight and enormous in value — transport cost is a rounding error.
Predictable bulk pricing. For the main suppliers, unit value held in a tight $70.5M/ton–$142.2M/ton band for most of the year.
Stable demand. The full-year $72.06B still cleared, and the Q1 bulge shows buyers were active, not absent.
Where it is fragile
Double concentration. One origin (67.7%) and one port (94.8%) means a single disruption — a Swiss refinery halt or a New York clearance snag — hits the entire line at once.
Event-driven volume. With 93.0% in Q1 and a near-stop after, the trade is exposed to whatever triggered that front-loading; if it reverses, annual volume could swing hard.
Thin diversification. The top ten partners already cover 97.4%, so spreading risk further is a slow grind.
Opaque driver. The reason for the Q1 surge is not in the data, which makes 2026 planning a guess until it is understood.
Trend Outlook
At 67.7% share, no near-term replacement exists. Continuity is the base case unless a refinery or policy shock lands.
If 2026 repeats a Q1-only surge, treat it as structural positioning. If it spreads across the year, 2025 was an outlier.
Singapore, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the realistic growth sources beyond the big three; each is still sub-3%.
With 94.8% clearing there, any capacity or policy change at that one port outweighs everything else.
5. Recommendations
Origin strategy
Protect the Swiss line. 67.7% of value rides on it; secure refinery and freight relationships rather than treating supply as assured.
Build the second tier. Lift Australia and South Africa share where possible, and open Singapore, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as named alternates.
Use Canada deliberately. Its different product mix ($163.8M/ton/t) adds variety, not just volume — useful if the goal is composition, not only tonnage.
Pricing and hedging
Hedge the unit-value swing. Per-ton value moved from $70.5M/ton to $142.2M/ton across the year; lock landed cost with forwards indexed to gold and PGM prices.
Separate the mixes. Price Canadian (high-purity / PGM) flows on their own basis from the Swiss gold bulk.
Watch the H2 premium. Late-year goods carried higher unit value — budget for mix, not just weight.
Channel resilience
Treat New York as a single point of failure. At 94.8% it is the whole gateway; protect bonded-warehouse capacity and clearance throughput first.
Grow Dallas-Fort Worth as the backup. At 4.2% it is the only real alternative node; invest in making it substitutable.
Ignore the noise ports. Buffalo, Ogdensburg and similar report no weight — do not build contingency on them.
Risk management
Model a New York or Swiss shutdown. With double concentration, that is the dominant scenario to pre-stage alternatives for.
Find the Q1 driver. Until the front-loading cause is known, 2026 volume is unforecastable; close that gap before committing capacity.
Track concentration monthly. A rising Switzerland-or-New-York share is an early warning the buffer is shrinking.
Data Notes
HS classification. HTS 7115.90.0530 is the U.S. ten-digit statistical breakout of HS 7115.90 — other articles of jewellery or of goldsmiths' or silversmiths' wares, of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal. All figures refer to this ten-digit code.
Source. U.S. Customs import records (CIF/FOB value, weight, transaction counts).
Period. January–December 2025, full year, twelve months.
Units. Value in US dollars (CIF and FOB); weight in metric tons. Unit value is CIF divided by metric tons (USD per metric ton). The source dataset also carries a separate "quantity" column whose unit is not stated, so metric tons is used as the reliable physical measure throughout.
Zero-weight ports. Buffalo, Ogdensburg, Detroit and Philadelphia report zero metric tons; their unit value is not computable and is shown as —.
FOB ≈ CIF. Freight and insurance are negligible against value across all rows, so FOB and CIF are effectively equal — expected for high-value, low-weight precious metal.
MoM. (current month value − prior month value) ÷ prior month value.
Market share. a partner's or port's value divided by total annual value.
Transactions. count of customs declaration records in the dataset (approximate, not an official customs field).
Regional naming. "Hong Kong,China" follows the U.S. trade regional classification.
Bottom line
U.S. imports of HTS 7115.90.0530 in 2025 were a $72.06B line almost entirely defined by two facts: the metal comes from Switzerland, and it lands in New York. 93.0% of the year's value cleared in the first quarter and then all but stopped, a profile that looks like deliberate front-loading rather than normal flow. Switzerland (67.7%), Australia (11.9%) and South Africa (5.4%) cover 85.1% of origin; New York City covers 94.8% of entries. The double concentration — one supplier, one port — is the real risk, and the practical move is to harden the New York/Swiss channel while quietly building Dallas-Fort Worth and the second-tier origins as genuine backups. The one open question is why everything arrived in Q1; answering that is the difference between planning for 2026 and guessing at it.