What formal export controls or customs approval records exist for Chinese silver shipments in 2025–2026, and where are they published?

1. What the formal control is: a two‑year licensing/whitelist replacing quotas

Beijing replaced the decades‑old quota mechanism with a two‑year special export licence for silver (covering 2026–2027), formally announced by MOFCOM as part of a broader “export control” framework that also covers tungsten and antimony; Reuters and Chinese state outlets report the move as an explicit shift from quotas to an approval‑based whitelist published by the ministry ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. Who is allowed to export and where that list is published

MOFCOM released a list of authorised exporters — 44 companies for silver in 2026–2027 — and that whitelist was published in the ministry’s announcement and widely reported by international wire services such as Reuters and domestic outlets including Global Times and state statements hosted on MOFCOM’s website ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

3. The approval criteria referenced publicly

The public rules attach strict eligibility tests: exporters must have carried out silver exports across 2022–2024, while new applicants must show large annual production capacity (reporting cites a threshold of roughly 80 tonnes) plus consistent export track records, criteria highlighted in coverage from the South China Morning Post and other outlets summarising the MOFCOM requirements ^{[6] [4]}.

4. Where customs data and approvals appear (and what’s missing)

Aggregate export and trade data remain published by China’s General Administration of Customs — used by reporters to contextualise volumes and trends (for example, export tonnes and year‑on‑year changes) — but the sources do not show a public, line‑by‑line customs approval or per‑shipment licence database for silver exports; Reuters and Global Times cite MOFCOM’s public notice and customs statistics are referenced by coverage, indicating that MOFCOM publishes the whitelist while GAC provides aggregate trade figures ^{[2] [1]}.

5. How the measures are framed and competing explanations

Official framing in MOFCOM’s notice, echoed in state media, emphasises resource protection and environmental stewardship as motives for tighter controls, while analysts and Western trade commentators argue the regime mirrors rare‑earth tactics intended to preserve domestic supply and give Beijing strategic leverage — both narratives are present in reporting from MOFCOM, Reuters and independent analysts ^{[3] [1] [4]}.

6. Practical effect on shipment approvals and transparency gaps

Reporting documents the practical gatekeeping: only a tightly limited set of exporters can legally ship silver overseas under the 2026–2027 licences, which implies customs will enforce the whitelist at clearance, but none of the referenced articles produce or cite a public registry of individual customs clearance approvals or shipment‑level licences; therefore, while the formal control mechanism and authorised‑exporter list are published by MOFCOM and reported internationally, open access to real‑time customs approval records at the shipment level is not evidenced in the available sources ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

7. What researchers and buyers should consult to verify approvals

Primary documents named in the media are the MOFCOM notification and its published whitelist (MOFCOM website) and aggregate trade releases from the General Administration of Customs; Reuters, Global Times, South China Morning Post and the MOFCOM announcement are the cited public sources for the rules, the 44‑company list and the stated eligibility criteria — but deeper verification (transactional licences, customs clearances or export‑permit paperwork) is not shown in these reports and would require direct access to MOFCOM or GAC databases or official correspondence beyond the press notices ^{[1] [2] [6]}.