US bedding imports by country 2025 (HS 6302)

If you import bedding, the supplier map you costed against two years ago is out of date. In 2025 the ranking for US bed and bath linen flipped: India passed China as the number one source, China's volume fell more than a quarter in a single year, and the duty math by origin diverged sharply enough that two identical sheet sets can land 25 points of cost apart depending only on where they were sewn. This post pulls the US Census import data by HS code and country, lays the current tariff stack on top, and translates both into the landed-cost decision sitting on your desk.

A quick note on codes, because the whole analysis turns on them. HS 6302 (Harmonized System heading 6302) is bed, table, toilet and kitchen linen: sheets, pillowcases, duvet covers, towels. It is the cleanest proxy for "bedding." HS 6301 is blankets and travelling rugs, and it behaves completely differently. Both sit inside HS Chapter 63, all made-up textile articles, which was a $15.06B US import category in 2025.

The ranking just flipped: India is now #1

For years the mental model was simple: China makes your sheets. That model broke in 2025. India imported $1.985B of HS 6302 bed and bath linen into the US, overtaking China at $1.451B, with Pakistan close behind at $1.042B. The mover was China: its value fell 27.0% year-over-year, from $1.987B in 2024 to $1.451B in 2025. That single drop is the entire story behind the reordering. India's own value actually slipped about 5.6%, so India did not surge to the top so much as China fell away from it.

It is worth being precise about what kind of shift this is. The whole HS 6302 category contracted 10.5% in value over the same year, from $5.845B to $5.233B. So this was not clean substitution where every dollar that left China reappeared in India. It was a China-share reallocation inside a shrinking category. Demand softened and China absorbed almost all of the decline, while the no-Section-301 origins held roughly flat and gained share by standing still.

The fastest-growing origins sit at the edges. Vietnam grew 55.1% (from $33.9M to $52.6M) and Cambodia grew 85.8% (from $17.3M to $32.2M). Those are the visible early signals of "China plus one" reallocation, but the bases are tiny. A brand cannot move meaningful volume into Cambodia's $32M of total US capacity without becoming a large share of it overnight.

When I talk to founders sourcing home textiles, the reaction to this chart is usually relief followed by a correction. The relief is "good, China is not the only option anymore." The correction is the next section.

But three countries still own 85% of the category

Diversification feels like it should mean optionality. In bedding it mostly does not. India, China and Pakistan together accounted for 85.5% of the $5.23B category in 2025. Everyone else, Turkey at 3.5%, Portugal at 2.2%, Mexico, Colombia and Vietnam each around 1%, splits the remaining slice. So when an operator says "we are diversifying our bedding sourcing," what that almost always means in practice is moving volume between India, China and Pakistan. It is rebalancing inside an oligopoly, not escaping it.

That matters because each of those three carries its own policy and concentration risk. Pakistan is exposed to its own energy and cotton-crop volatility. India is the new anchor and therefore the new single point of failure if you over-rotate into it. And China, even diminished, is still a quarter of the category and irreplaceable at the speed and scale some lines require.

The tariff stack is the real story by origin

Origin volume is interesting. Origin duty is what actually changes your landed cost. Take a cotton bed-linen line, HTS 6302.31. From every origin it carries a base most-favored-nation (MFN) rate of about 6.7%. For China only, a 25% Section 301 duty stacks on top, taking the effective duty to roughly 31.7%. From India, Pakistan, Vietnam or Turkey, there is no Section 301 add-on, so the same goods land at about 6.7%. That is close to a 5x difference in duty for an identical product, driven by nothing but the country on the customs entry.

Run it through a unit. A sheet set with a $40 FOB cost lands roughly $2.68 of duty from India and roughly $12.68 from China on that line. Ten dollars a unit, on a product where retail competition is brutal and gross margin is already thin, is the difference between a line that works and one that does not. This is why the volume shift and the duty shift point in the same direction: the origins gaining share are precisely the ones without the 25% penalty.

Where your bedding comes from is now a tariff decision dressed up as a sourcing decision. The volume left China because the duty stack on a Chinese sheet set is about five times the duty on the identical Indian one. If you are still costing your bedding on the FOB quote and not the landed-by-origin number, you are reading the wrong line of the invoice.

2026 is a moving target: confirm before you cost

Here is the part to handle carefully, because it is genuinely unsettled. The durable, source-backed core of the duty stack is the MFN base plus the Section 301 add-on for China. That has held and is the number you can plan against. The layer on top of it has been volatile. The IEEPA "reciprocal" tariffs were struck down in February 2026 and stopped being collected later that month, and a Section 122 temporary surcharge was introduced to replace part of them.

What that means in practice: do not lock a 2026 budget against a precise "all-in" rate you read in a blog post, including this one. The MFN-plus-Section-301 stack is the foundation; surcharges sit on top and can change between the day you quote and the day your container clears. Before you commit a purchase order, re-confirm the rate at the full 10-digit HTS line for your specific construction and origin. The directional conclusion (China-origin carries a large duty premium that India and Pakistan do not) is stable. The exact decimal is not.

What this means for your sourcing math

The pattern we see again and again with home-goods operators is that the sourcing conversation starts in the wrong place. It starts with "should we get out of China," when it should start with "what does each line actually cost to land from each origin, at the duty rates that apply today." Those are different questions, and the second one usually reorders the first.

Three things to do this quarter. First, re-cost your bedding by origin on a landed basis, duty included, not FOB. When we have struggled to make a re-sourcing case pencil, it was almost always because someone compared FOB quotes and treated duty as a footnote. On a Chinese line the duty is not a footnote, it is a quarter of the cost. Second, treat China as core, not sole. A 27% drop in a year does not mean the category abandoned it. It means smart operators trimmed China to the lines where its speed and quality genuinely cannot be matched and moved the commodity volume to India and Pakistan. Third, check your sub-product before you generalize. If you sell blankets, the whole "India is now bigger" story does not apply to you at all.

That last point deserves a number. Blankets (HS 6301) are still 73% China: $1.002B of a $1.372B category in 2025, with India ($138M), Vietnam ($78M) and Pakistan ($41M) far behind. So a brand that sells both sheets and blankets faces two completely different sourcing maps under one "bedding" label. When founders running a brand this size tell me they "diversified their bedding," I ask which line, because the sheet side and the blanket side are not the same supply chain and do not carry the same risk.

If you want help turning this into your own landed-cost-by-origin model, that is exactly the kind of work our interim CFO services cover. For the broader picture across categories, see our DTC import origins by category hub and the companion piece on apparel sourcing and tariff management.

Sources and methodology

The origin and volume figures come from the US Census Bureau International Trade imports by HS endpoint, variable CON_VAL_YR (imports for consumption, cumulative year-to-date), pulled at time=2025-12 for full-year 2025 and time=2024-12 for full-year 2024. We used CON_VAL_YR rather than the general import value because it reflects what actually cleared into US consumption, which is the figure that matches a landed-cost analysis.

Commodity filters were I_COMMODITY=6302 (bed, table, toilet and kitchen linen, the core bedding subheading), I_COMMODITY=6301 (blankets and travelling rugs), and I_COMMODITY=63 (all made-up textile articles, for the chapter total). Country rows come from CTY_CODE / CTY_NAME, and "Total for all countries" is the aggregate code. Census full-year figures pulled at the December vintage can revise slightly in later releases, which is acceptable for a trend post but a reason to re-pull before any high-stakes decision.

The ranking was independently corroborated against OEC's House Linens in United States Trade profile, which reports the same 2025 ordering (India $1.99B, China $1.47B, Pakistan $1.05B, Turkey $185M, Portugal $115M) from a separate compilation, giving us confidence the Census pull is not an artifact of one source.

Freight context comes from FRED series FRGSHPUSM649NCIS (a Cass-style US freight shipments index), pulled monthly from 2024-01 through 2026-05 and used only for directional cost context: roughly 1.10 in mid-2024 easing to roughly 1.04 by May 2026. Freight was a mild tailwind over the period, not the variable driving the origin shift.

Tariff rates were compiled via Perplexity regulatory research in June 2026 and cross-checked against the Trump 2.0 Tariff Tracker and tariff-line trackers: a base MFN of about 6.7% on the cotton bed-linen line HTS 6302.31, plus a 25% Section 301 duty on China-origin goods only, for a combined effective stack near 31.7% before 2026 surcharges. The important caveat: the 2026 environment is in flux. IEEPA reciprocal tariffs were struck down around February 20, 2026, and a Section 122 temporary surcharge was introduced. We present the MFN-plus-Section-301 stack as the durable core and treat any surcharge as "confirm at the 10-digit HTS line before costing." Do not publish or budget a precise all-in 2026 rate without that confirmation.

Frequently asked questions