China lawyer network 2003-04-2411:09: 53
On April 3rd, the United States International Trade Commission held a final ruling vote, and with an absolute vote of 4∶0, it was determined that China's ball bearings did not cause substantial damage or threat of damage to the American bearing industry, and the dumping case of China's ball bearings exported to the United States was not established. So far, the anti-dumping case of China's ball bearings exported to the United States, which lasted for 14 months, ended in the victory of China's bearing industry.
The Ministry of Commerce, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products and other departments recently revealed the litigation process.
Giving up litigation means giving up the market.
Anti-dumping proceedings began on February 13, 2002. American Bearing Association filed an anti-dumping complaint against China's ball bearings exported to the United States with the United States International Trade Commission, and the latter immediately published the investigation results on its website on February 15. This is the first time that American Bearing Association has used "anti-dumping", a trade protection measure allowed by WTO rules, to try to sanction China products after China joined the WTO.
Ball bearing is a kind of widely used mechanical parts, and it is also one of the bulk mechanical and electrical commodities that China exports to the United States for more than 654.38 billion dollars every year. The application for anti-dumping investigation submitted by the American Bearing Association involves the export of goods worth more than 300 million US dollars to the United States. If the case is lost, the anti-dumping duty on China's ball bearing products entering the United States will be 17% to 246%, and the case will be reviewed annually by the US Department of Commerce.
Director Liu Danyang of the Bureau of Import and Export Fair Trade of the Ministry of Commerce said that the purpose of anti-dumping investigations in various countries is not to hold the parties concerned accountable, but to limit their future "dumping" behavior, which is often aimed at a product, not an enterprise. Therefore, the automatic abandonment of the enterprises involved means giving up the market.
The preliminary ruling was unfavorable to China.
The preliminary hearing of this case will be held on March 6, 2002.
After learning this news, Hao Wei, Secretary General of the Basic Parts Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products, and Xiangjun Gao, Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Chamber of Commerce, paid an emergency visit to the United States on February 18. Within five days, they had serious discussions with a number of American law firms about responding to the case, and finally decided that a team of senior lawyers and economic experts from American Guowei Kaiping International Law Firm would be China's legal representative in the review stage of the US International Trade Commission.
According to the analysis of Electromechanical Chamber of Commerce, most application fields in the United States require high-quality ball bearings, while China ball bearings with relatively low quality are not used, but mainly supplied by manufacturers in the United States, Japan and Europe. Ball bearings exported from China to the United States are mostly used in roller skates, special lamps, conveyor belts, rollers, lawn mowers and other fields. Previously, products from other countries dominated this market, not from the United States. The ball bearing products exported from China to the United States were essentially a supplement to the American bearing industry. I export less than 4% of ball bearings to the United States every year. Therefore, there is no possibility of damage to members of American Bearing Association.
On March 6th, 2002, at the preliminary hearing in Washington, Hu Ruoqian, the representative of American General Bearing Company, as a witness in China, presented a large amount of evidence to the judges of the US International Trade Commission, which strongly proved that China's ball bearings exported to the United States did not have any damage or threat of damage to American bearing enterprises.
However, in the preliminary ruling vote held on April 29th of the same year, the United States International Trade Commission still made a preliminary ruling on the damage of ball bearings originating in China by a vote of 3-2.
The final vote won in one fell swoop.
According to the procedure, the US Department of Commerce immediately launched a dumping investigation. After many complaints, on February 26th this year, the US Department of Commerce announced the final dumping ruling on ball bearings and their parts originating in China: the dumping margins of 45 enterprises including Zhejiang Xinchang Pierre Bearing Company, Wanxiang Bearing Group Company, Ningbo Cixing Company, Ningbo Cixing Company and Changshan Import and Export Company were 8.33, 7.22, 0.59, 7.80 and 59.30 respectively. Up to now, except for Ningbo Cixing Company, all responding manufacturers in China have been ruled to have different degrees of dumping.
In order to win the final victory, Hao Wei and his party went to the United States again on March 3, and organized my lawyer, American General Bearing Company and its lawyers, Zhejiang Xinchang Pierre Bearing Company and its lawyers, Tiansheng Bearing Company and its lawyers to rationally and effectively refute the unreasonable accusations of American Bearing Association at the final hearing of the case held by the US International Trade Commission on March 6. The United States finally accepted and recognized our reasons for responding to the lawsuit, and completely rejected the unreasonable demands of the American Bearing Association in the final vote held by the US International Trade Commission on April 3.
Focus on the overall situation and don't give orders to others.
In the review stage of the United States International Trade Commission, our respondent must be a representative of the industry to be qualified to respond. The China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products has played a very good role as a member representative.
Hao Wei said that under the effective organization and guidance of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products, hundreds of ball bearing exporters exported to the United States submitted questionnaires to the US International Trade Commission on time within a few days before March 4, 2002. Due to the informative and powerful information provided, as many as 48 enterprises have obtained separate tax treatment from the US Department of Commerce. Hao Wei lamented that most enterprises are facing such international lawsuits for the first time, which fully reflects the excellent overall quality of China bearing enterprises and their ability to respond to anti-dumping investigations.
Hao Wei said that winning the case was a valuable achievement made by all the staff of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products and all the responding enterprises through 14 months of hard work day and night. I hope that relevant enterprises will focus on the overall situation and do not give orders to others.
Why is it often "anti-dumping"
Since joining the WTO, the trade friction between China and its trading partners has increased. In particular, the European Union has repeatedly imposed restrictive policies on China products, and the United States has also adopted some practices that deviate from WTO rules in the trade of steel and agricultural products. According to authoritative statistics, from March to June, 2002, there were 38 anti-dumping and safeguard measures initiated only against China's export products, including 7 initiated by developed members 19 and 2 initiated by developing members 12.
On the whole, other members who have trade disputes with China are still concentrated in developed countries such as the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada, and developing countries such as India and Latin America. Friction products are mostly labor-intensive and low value-added products for China; The industries involved in the dispute are mostly industries with contradictions between developed and developing countries, such as steel trade friction, which is already a sunset industry in the United States and a very important industry for China; The main causes of trade disputes are non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping, countervailing and technical barriers to trade.
pages/2003-4-24/s7673.html
Sino-American honey anti-dumping case and its enlightenment
(2005-6-3)
Case overview
The honey anti-dumping case 1994 filed by the United States against China is the first case between China and the United States to handle the anti-dumping investigation by using the terms of the standstill agreement. 1994 10 year 10 month, the anti-dumping law was used to sue China honey for dumping to the US market at a price lower than the fair value. In the preliminary ruling of this case, the Ministry of Commerce took India as a substitute country. Due to many incomparable factors between the selected substitute country and China, the dumping margin calculated by the Ministry of Commerce is too high, reaching as high as 1.25%. This result not only reflects the unfairness and injustice of the trial, but also gives the respondent in China a clear message, that is, if the dumping trial continues, China's honey export to the United States may be completely blocked under the condition of high tax rate. To this end, China hired lawyers and put pressure on the government through the main consumers of American honey. Finally, the Ministry of Commerce accepted the way of suspending the agreement and stopped the anti-dumping investigation.
Relevant provisions of the pause agreement
The pause agreement of American anti-dumping law has been basically formatted and signed by the Ministry of Commerce for implementation. In the suspension agreement signed in this dumping case, the main clauses are as follows:
1.
The main purposes of the standstill agreement are: to prevent restrictions on imported products and reduce the prices of similar products in the American market; Protect the interests of domestic consumers; Easy to monitor in importing countries. The draft standstill agreement in this case basically achieved the above three objectives, so the bilateral governments of China and the United States reached an agreement on August 2 1995. The agreement stipulates that the anti-dumping investigation on all honey imported from China will be terminated from the date of publication of the Federal Gazette, and all the import deposits paid before will be refunded. The import of honey from China will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the standstill agreement.
2. Export quantity restrictions
According to the agreement, China's annual honey export to the United States is 43.925 million pounds. According to the growth of American honey market, the adjustment of export volume should not exceed 6% of annual quota at most. Quotas are allocated once every six months and are allowed to be transferred and borrowed.
3. Reference price
The reference price is published quarterly by the Ministry of Commerce and should be discussed with the China Municipal Government before it is determined. The reference price is 92% of the weighted average price of honey imported from other countries in the United States in the last six months. The unit price data should be public and can be retrieved from statistical data. If the accused product cannot be sold at a price lower than the reference price, the China Municipal Government shall ensure that the export price is equal to or higher than the reference price, and provide relevant contract and price information for verification by the Ministry of Commerce.
4. Terms of the agreement
The suspension agreement is valid for five years until August 1 day, 2000. Either party may propose to suspend the agreement. The U.S. government should review this agreement one year in advance within the validity period, and if no breach is found, it can propose to terminate this agreement. The China government can notify the US Department of Commerce 60 days in advance to terminate this agreement, but the anti-dumping duty will take effect.
5. Quota certificate
According to the export quota, the China government directly and indirectly controls the quantity of the accused products exported to the United States, and shall ensure that the certification procedures, the complaint mechanism of the accused parties such as chambers of commerce, exporters, manufacturers and agents, and the punishment mechanism for violation of this agreement are established within 90 days after the entry into force of this agreement. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the export quantity does not exceed the limit and the export price is not lower than the reference price. Provide materials on the implementation of quotas to the US Department of Commerce within 30 days after every six months.
6. Anti-circumvention behavior
The Government of China should take all feasible measures to prevent circumvention. If the facts are found, the China government should solve them as soon as possible, including requiring exporters to indicate in their contracts with third countries that they are not allowed to export the products to the United States by means of re-export, transshipment, bypassing Hong Kong and various forms of transfer, and inform the US Department of Commerce of the results within ten days after treatment; Or the United States unilaterally takes measures to deduct China's corresponding quota, and informs China of the results and basis.
Step 7 confirm
The Government of China shall provide all the information required for verification, and the verification time may be limited to one year or longer, and the specific time may be determined by both parties through consultation according to the implementation of the agreement.
The enlightenment of this case to us
The handling of the United States v. China honey anti-dumping case is another example of the proper application of the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping rules, and it is also a good way to solve the bilateral trade friction. It can be seen that responding to the anti-dumping investigation is not the only choice, especially when the preliminary ruling result of the investigation is obviously unfavorable to China and it is estimated that the situation is not sure to be reversed at the final ruling, using the pause agreement is also a reliable choice to solve the problem. Of course, this requires the strong support and intervention of relevant government agencies in China.
apt.com/tradeNews/show.asp? id = 159
Sino-US Color TV Anti-dumping Case —— China's Color TV Anti-dumping Rejects "Conspiracy"
2004-6- 18 9:36:22
It is not easy to distinguish between the so-called "conspiracy" and "collusion" in shopping malls, but the anti-dumping case of color TV sets gives a clear judgment and annotation.
The year-long anti-dumping case against Chinese and American color TVs ended in fiasco. This month, China color TV sets worth more than 276 million US dollars will be subject to anti-dumping duties by the US Department of Commerce. The dumping tax rates of four special responding enterprises such as Changhong, TCL, Konka and Xoceco are 24.48%, 22.36%, 1 1.36% and 4.35% respectively, and the tax rates of nine responding enterprises such as Haier and Hisense are 265,438+.
In fact, it is impossible for China color TV enterprises to lose in this lawsuit, or they will not lose so badly. It was the initial split of the camp and the subsequent farce of pulling out the mole that caused the passive situation of Chinese enterprises.
On May 2, last year, Wuhe Electronics Company filed a complaint with the US Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission, accusing China of dumping the color TV set with the size above 2 1 inch. A week later, representatives of major domestic enterprises held an emergency meeting in the Chamber of Commerce for Mechanical and Electrical Engineering to establish an offensive and defensive alliance, which was attended by the Chamber of Commerce for Mechanical and Electrical Engineering and hired lawyers to respond to the lawsuit. But in the next few days, Skyworth invited TCL, Konka and Hisense to hire lawyers to form an alliance to negotiate with the United States. Changhong, Xoceco and Haier, which were then excluded, immediately defected, took the lead in self-reliance and joined hands with the Chamber of Commerce for Electromechanical Industry to hire American lawyers to respond to the lawsuit. Since then, Skyworth, Hisense and TCL have stepped up efforts to form another front. On June 5, Konka, who had been silent, suddenly announced "independent response". The offensive and defensive alliance is completely divided.
At the first hearing of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the American distributors APEX and Wal-Mart supported China's color TV without dumping, but the practice of hiring lawyers by the electromechanical industry chamber of commerce was puzzling. I don't know if Xoceco's equivalent camp manufacturers will appear in court. While domestic color TV giants are busy uniting with Lian Heng, they are puzzled. On June 16, the US International Trade Commission preliminarily ruled that China color TV sets constituted dumping.
During the one-month period from prosecution to preliminary ruling, Chinese enterprises successfully "conspired" to be divided into three camps. While trying to safeguard their own interests, each camp tries to use Americans to attack other camps in order to gain more market share. Each camp has its own "mole". As a result, your life was calculated. The U.S. ruling was directed at all China color TV companies, and American companies used this month to successfully win the lawsuit.
It was not until the hearing of the US Department of Commerce in March this year that China color TV giants realized the problem and formed a joint defense team. However, the general trend has gone. On April 13, the final ruling of the US Department of Commerce upheld the preliminary ruling and sentenced China color TV to dumping.
The lawsuit is pending. Xoceco's anti-dumping duty was greatly reduced from 3 1.70% to 4.35%. The news that "some China color TV manufacturers reached a behind-the-scenes deal with Wuhe Electronics, which led to the final defeat of China color TV" quickly spread to major media, and categorically claimed that Xoceco and Wuhe Electronics had a behind-the-scenes order transaction, and gained the minimum loss by selling domestic enterprises. It was the peers who launched this "conspiracy", "because no one outside the industry can speak so honestly and know the detailed inside story". The fact is that Xoceco got a lower tax rate because it took the high-end route. The foreign invasion is not smooth, and there is a "conspiracy" of internal and external troubles.
Unlike enterprises in China, Americans use "conspiracy". Although it is obvious that they have made unfair judgments by taking advantage of China's lack of market economy status, their way of thinking and means of doing things always follow the legal rules, and there is no obvious injustice in the whole proceedings. In particular, the on-the-spot inspection by the inspection team of the US Department of Commerce in China has amazed domestic enterprises. Sun Guangrong, a spokesman for Xoceco, said that the survey included every component, screw, waste paper, consumables and even the performance, function, classification and size of products used in manufacturing. In addition, the source explanation and evidence of these objects should be presented. In the past 20 days in Changhong, the inspection team went to all relevant departments and checked all the information. Changhong spokesperson Liu Haizhong has repeatedly said that "it's too much!" When asked about the content of the survey. .
On the other hand, the habitual thinking of domestic enterprises is a black-box operation outside the rules. In the long-term immature market system, the lack of rules makes them accustomed to "conspiracy" to obtain benefits, such as price alliance of the eight major color TV manufacturers, malicious price cuts to disrupt the market and so on.
China lost the case, while the Malaysian color TV industry, which was also the defendant of this anti-dumping with China, won a great victory. The Malaysian government, in line with color TV companies, cited the relevant provisions of the WTO and argued that Mexico and other countries exported more color TVs to the United States than Malaysia, but they were not accused. The United States finally ruled that Malaysian color TVs did not constitute dumping. Today, with the gradual improvement of the market system, especially when dealing with mature market economy countries, "conspiracy" will eventually suffer.
/Dongtai/content/200469181087522691593.html.