EN 10204 3.1 is not the same as a mill test certificate. Getting this wrong can sink an order at the destination port.
Most export problems with heating alloys are not about the material. They are about the paperwork.
A mill test certificate issued by the supplier's own production department is, under EN 10204, a 2.2 declaration. It states conformity but does not provide independent verification.
A 3.1 certificate must be issued by an inspection department independent of production, or by a third party. It records the heat number, the tests performed, the results, and the signatory.
Many European customers accept only 3.1.
Route one: the supplier has an independent inspection department. Ask to see a sample certificate and confirm the format before ordering.
Route two: a third-party inspection body (SGS, TUV, BV) re-tests the material and issues the certificate. Allow 7–15 working days and roughly 5,000–10,000 RMB.
| Region | Typical requirement |
|---|---|
| Europe | EN 10204 2.2 or 3.1, CE marking where applicable, RoHS / REACH |
| United States | ASTM report, mill test certificate, occasionally UL |
| Middle East | SASO (Saudi Arabia) and national equivalents |
| Southeast Asia | generally a mill test certificate |
A Chinese grade and a European or American grade with a similar name are not necessarily the same material. Compare composition, not names. Kanthal A-1, for example, is close to 0Cr25Al5 but not identical in every respect.
A shipment to Germany was rejected on arrival because the supplier provided a self-issued certificate instead of 3.1. Re-testing took ten days; storage at the port ran to several thousand euros; the customer deducted a delay penalty. Total cost approached the value of the paperwork many times over.
Before quoting, confirm: destination country, the customer's certificate requirement, and whether the supplier can meet it. Build the certificate cost into the price rather than discovering it after the order is placed.
