China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024

Industry Insight by 2FIRSTS
May.23.2024
China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Chinese e-cigarette exports to South Korea in April 2024 rose 26.49%, reaching $74.76 million, reports Customs Administration.

According to updated trade data from the General Administration of Customs, 2FIRSTS has compiled the e-cigarette exports from China to South Korea in April 2024 as follows:

China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Image source: 2FIRSTS

 

The export volume amounted to approximately 74.76 million US dollars, representing a year-on-year increase of 26.49%.

China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Image source: 2FIRSTS

 

The export volume reached approximately 3,004 tons, showing a month-on-month increase of 17.39% and a year-on-year increase of 60.17%.

China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Image source: 2FIRSTS

 

The export unit price is $24.88 per kilogram, representing a 2.3% increase compared to the previous period, and a 21.0% decrease year-on-year. The average price of "e-cigarettes and similar personal electronic vaporization devices" is $2.47 per unit.

China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Image source: 2FIRSTS

 

Among them, 'e-cigarettes and similar personal electronic vaporizing devices' accounted for 17.1% of the export categories, while 'non-tobacco or reconstituted tobacco, nicotine-containing non-combustible products' accounted for 82.9%.

China's E-cigarette Export Data to South Korea in April 2024
Image source: 2FIRSTS

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10
China Discloses First Criminal Case Over Counterfeit Vapes Disguised as “Medical Nebulizers” and “Zero-Nicotine” Products
China Discloses First Criminal Case Over Counterfeit Vapes Disguised as “Medical Nebulizers” and “Zero-Nicotine” Products
Chinese authorities have disclosed the country’s first reported criminal case involving counterfeit vapes marketed as “medical nebulizers” and “zero-nicotine” products. Authorities determined that the products involved were counterfeit vapes and pursued criminal charges for producing and selling counterfeit goods. According to the report, the case resulted in the seizure of 347,000 counterfeit vape pods and 53,700 vape devices, with physical goods valued at 22.13 million yuan.
Aug.04
CCPIT Says Trade Friction Index for China-Related Electronics Sector Remains High, With Vape Products Among Areas of Focus
CCPIT Says Trade Friction Index for China-Related Electronics Sector Remains High, With Vape Products Among Areas of Focus
China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) held its July regular press conference on July 31, 2026, releasing the May 2026 Global Economic and Trade Friction Index. CCPIT spokesperson Yang Fan said the global trade friction index stood at 95 in May, remaining at a medium-to-high level. By industry, the electronics sector recorded the highest trade friction index among 13 monitored industries. In China-related trade frictions, the index stood at 93, with electronics products including drones, chips and vape products among areas where friction remained elevated.
Aug.03
Australia Adds 6-Methylnicotine to Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances, Effective October 1
Australia Adds 6-Methylnicotine to Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances, Effective October 1
Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration published a final decision on September 25 to classify 6-methylnicotine as a Schedule 9 prohibited substance under the Poisons Standard, effective October 1, 2026. TGA said the chemical has been reported in e-cigarette liquids sold in Australia and marketed as nicotine-free or nicotine alternatives, while evidence also indicates its use in preparations such as oral pouches. The government originally proposed a Schedule 7 classification but ultimately adopted the stricter Schedule 9 designation, citing acute toxicity, dependence risk, use in unapproved consumer products and misleading marketing.
News
Sep.29 by 2Firsts Perspectives
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea's liquid-vape market is showing changes across raw-material imports, product types and sales channels after synthetic nicotine came under the Tobacco Business Act on April 24. Customs data show nicotine-analogue imports totaled 12,126 kilograms from April through August, while synthetic-nicotine imports over the same five months totaled 231,663 kilograms, just 39.3% of the amount imported in March alone. Physical liquid-vape stores tracked in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province fell 9.9%, unmanned outlets edged higher and online sales listings increased from 27,774 to 42,437. Government testing of 105 liquid inhalation products promoted as nicotine-free separately found nicotine in 13 and 6-methylnicotine in 12.
Sep.22
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28