Exporter and inspector checking an Iranian saffron shipment

Iranian saffron exports decline records a specific customs comparison, not a claim that exports always fall. According to the 2016 report, Iran exported 25,481 kg of saffron worth US$37.461 million in the first two months of Iranian year 1395. The same period a year earlier was reported at 27.4 tonnes and US$40.7 million.

If those headline totals are correct, volume fell by about 7.0% and value by about 8.0%. The implied average customs value declined only slightly, from roughly $1,485 to $1,470 per kg. That is useful context: most of the change came from less reported volume, not a collapse in the average declared value.

What period does the report cover?

The article was published on 24 July 2016 and cites ISNA and Iranian Customs. Its “first two months of this year” means the first two months of Iranian calendar year 1395, roughly the spring of 2016. It is therefore a short historical snapshot. It cannot be compared directly with a full calendar year or used as a current export total.

The source also gives a local-currency total rendered as “113 billion and 327 million and 25 thousand dollars.” The repeated dollar label is a translation error. It appears to be a second currency expression of the same customs value, but the backup does not identify the currency and unit reliably enough to repair it. The US-dollar headline total is retained separately.

The largest destinations in the surviving list

Spain was reported at 6,691 kg worth $8.028 million. China received 2,000 kg worth $3.332 million. Hong Kong was listed at 766 kg/$1.124 million, Sweden at 624 kg/$947,000, the Netherlands at 404 kg/$192,000 and Qatar at 369 kg/$290,000.

The United Arab Emirates row is visibly corrupted: it says “11 million kg” worth $18.643 million, even though the total for all destinations is only 25,481 kg. The intended quantity may have been around eleven thousand kilograms, but this page does not silently substitute that figure. The row remains unresolved.

Other European destinations reported

  • United Kingdom: 37 kg, $69,000.
  • Italy: 125 kg, $195,000.
  • Germany: 97 kg, $156,000.
  • Switzerland: 201 kg, $344,000.
  • France: 205 kg, $268,000.
  • Turkey: 3 kg, $4,000; Czech Republic: 2 kg, $4,000.
  • Norway: 4 kg, $7,000; Greece: 10 kg, $18,000.
  • Lebanon: 4 kg, $6,000.

The source calls the Netherlands “Dutch”; that label has been normalised to the country name without changing its 404 kg/$192,000 figures.

Asia-Pacific destinations reported

  • Australia: 42 kg, $83,000.
  • Taiwan: 72 kg, $101,000; Japan: 57 kg, $88,000.
  • Singapore: 39 kg, $69,000; Malaysia: 28 kg, $45,000.
  • Bangladesh: 6 kg, $12,000; Nepal: 28 kg, $42,000.
  • Philippines: 5 kg, $8,000.

Two more rows cannot be accepted literally. Afghanistan is shown as one kilogram worth $2.49 million, and Pakistan as one kilogram worth $1.5 million. Those unit values are implausible and the destination totals do not reconcile cleanly with the headline. A missing “thousand” in the weights is possible, but not proven by the English backup.

Middle East and North American destinations reported

  • Bahrain: 204 kg, $153,000.
  • Iraq: 21 kg, $35,000; Oman: 31 kg, $53,000.
  • Kuwait: 111 kg, $175,000.
  • United States: 71 kg, $121,000; Canada: 18 kg, $44,000.

The destination list also includes the already noted UAE and Qatar figures. Taken together, the rows show a broad market, but the translation defects mean they should not be summed as if they were a clean customs file.

Saudi Arabia disappeared from this two-month list

Saudi Arabia had been an important customer in the previous comparison period: the article reports 2.3 tonnes worth $3.116 million in the first two months of Iranian year 1394. It then says Saudi Arabia was removed from the destination list in 1395.

The evidence supports a narrower statement: no Saudi shipment appears in this reported first-two-month 1395 list. It does not by itself establish a legal ban, a full-year end to trade or the reason for the absence.

Why three rows must remain unresolved

The UAE, Afghanistan and Pakistan quantities conflict with the headline total or their stated values. The article also repeats a prior-period local-currency figure as “115 million dollars” alongside US$40.7 million. These are classic signs of lost units in machine translation.

There is enough information to preserve the original claims, but not enough to reconstruct an official spreadsheet. Converting “one kilogram” to “one thousand kilograms,” changing “11 million” to “11 thousand,” or naming rials/tomans would create precision the surviving source does not possess. Those rows should be checked against the original Iran Customs release before analytical use.

How to compare saffron export data correctly

Saffron has its own Harmonized System subheading, HS 091020. A sound comparison holds the product code, reporter, flow, time period, partner coverage, valuation basis and unit constant. Monthly or two-month customs data may be revised and can be highly seasonal, so year-on-year matching matters more than comparing adjacent months.

Value divided by net weight gives an average declared value per kg, not a retail saffron price. It blends grades, bulk and packed goods, contract terms and destinations. It should never be presented as what every farmer, exporter or customer paid.

Later trade data show why this page must stay historical

World Bank WITS, drawing on UN Comtrade, reports that Iran exported 235,900 kg of HS 091020 saffron worth about $325.65 million in calendar year 2017. Its leading recorded destinations were Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, Spain, Afghanistan and China. That full-year dataset is not a correction to the first-two-month 2016 snapshot; it is a later period with a different scope.

The comparison demonstrates why destination rankings move. Orders shift between months, re-export hubs, contracts and reporting years. A current statement about Iranian saffron exports should cite a current customs period rather than refreshing the date on this article while leaving old numbers in place.

What the decline did—and did not—show

The reliable headline says early-year exports were lower in both net weight and US-dollar value than in the matching prior period. It does not explain the cause. Currency conditions, harvest availability, shipment timing, sanctions, destination demand, customs recording and contract schedules could all affect a short window; none should be assigned without evidence.

For exporters, the practical lesson is to monitor volume, value, average unit value and destination concentration separately. A small total decline may conceal the loss of one major buyer or a change in grade mix. The Saudi comparison and the large Spain/UAE shares show why partner-level review matters.

For a broader view of Iran’s production position and supplier checks, see Iranian saffron suppliers and world production. Buyers comparing quality and declarations can also use our guide to Iranian saffron standards.

Sources and calculation notes