Recent discussions in Russia have centered on the possibility of sharply increasing the import duty on wooden and upholstered furniture as well as mattresses imported from European nations. The proposed change would raise the current tariff band from about 8.5–12% to as high as 50%, framed as retaliatory sanctions aimed at countries deemed hostile. This shift was highlighted in a report attributed to Izvestia, which drew on statements from the Association of Furniture and Woodworking Businesses (AMDPR). The core idea behind the proposal is to shield domestic manufacturers from international competition and to signal a firm stance against policy actions perceived as unfriendly toward the Russian economy. The AMDPR notes that the tariff increase would be part of broader sanctions measures and would be designed to counterbalance a perceived asymmetry in global trade that disadvantages local producers. The practical effect, if implemented, would be a substantial shift in the cost structure of imported goods for consumers and retailers alike, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape of the sector across the country.
Market observers emphasized that the tariff hike would not be merely a protective policy move; it would also serve as a retaliatory tool in the broader geopolitical context. They pointed out that the higher duty could force foreign suppliers to reconsider their pricing strategies and distribution arrangements within Russia. Yet industry experts also warned of immediate price consequences for buyers, arguing that the resultant cost increase for imported furniture could reach or exceed 60 percent, depending on how wholesalers and retailers adjust margins and how exchange-rate dynamics play out. If duties rise to the proposed level, the resulting end-user prices could outpace many households’ willingness or ability to purchase, thereby limiting the competitive reach of European brands and shifting demand toward domestically produced options.
Proponents of the AMDPR plan argued that domestic manufacturers have already gained greater market traction as imports retreat, a trend they described as a natural consequence of longer-standing market forces and the evolving supply chain landscape. They cited statistics showing that foreign furniture accounted for about 49% of market share in 2019, with that figure narrowing to roughly 24% by 2022. This contraction in import penetration is presented as evidence that Russian producers have been able to expand their footprint even before any tariff changes, suggesting that the sector could absorb some protectionist measures without collapsing. In this view, the tariff adjustment would reinforce the upside for homegrown brands, stimulate investment in local production, and reduce exposure to currency and trade risks associated with international sourcing.
The discussion also acknowledged that any tariff increase would impact items acquired through parallel import channels, a practice that has become more visible in the Russian market. The AMDPR and related bodies highlighted that products from brands like IKEA, which sometimes appear on lists circulated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade for distribution, could be affected. The implication is that parallel imports, which have helped keep prices competitive through competition among importers, may face higher costs, potentially pushing retail prices higher and narrowing the price gap between domestic and imported offerings. The net effect, according to analysts, could be an overall price lift for a significant subset of the furniture market, with consumers bearing a larger share of the cost.
In another line of the policy debate, references were made to a proposal circulated by Rossiyskaya Gazeta and backed by the Furniture and Woodworking Industrialists Association around December 8th. The proposal suggested that supplies of plywood, furniture, and packaging originating from what are described as unfriendly countries should be banned within Russia. Observers noted that among the hardest-hit segments would be plywood, a material whose domestic market share had already contracted sharply. Even though input prices for plywood had shown some pressure easing, the sector’s production in Russia reportedly remained around 2010 levels, underscoring a structural vulnerability tied to import dependency. The policy stance reflects a broader effort to recalibrate the domestic supply chain, support local manufacturers, and stimulate reinvestment in Russian production capabilities while reducing exposure to external shocks from international trade tensions.