Cases That Have Occurred And Are Happening

In June 1999, the American apple juice Association filed an anti-dumping investigation application with the competent American authorities.

In the indictment, the association requested 91.84% anti-dumping duty on concentrated apple juice from China.

Subsequently, the US investigation agency filed a case.

In China, 11 companies took part in the lawsuit (the last one withdrew).

In June 2000, the US side made a final ruling and Chinese enterprises were injured.

In November 2003, the court of final appeal of the United States made final ruling.

According to the final judgment, 6 of the 10 responding enterprises in China received zero tax rates, 4 received a weighted average tax rate of 3.83%, and the non respondent enterprises continued to maintain 51.74%.

According to the laws of the United States, the US Department of commerce can appeal within 60 days after the final judgment.

The US Department of commerce finally gave up its appeal and signed an anti-dumping amendment order in February 9, 2004.

As a listed company, Fuyao Glass has become famous in recent years. One of the reasons is its excellent performance in responding to US anti-dumping.

In early 2001, US car glass enterprises filed anti-dumping investigations against Chinese products.

Although Fuyao fully respondent, the lawsuit ended in defeat.

After more than one year's trial, Fuyao's final dumping was determined to be as high as 11.8%.

Like apple juice companies, Fuyao Glass has chosen to continue the lawsuit.

In May 7, 2004, the US Department of Commerce announced the preliminary results of the retrial of the case. The dumping rate of Fuyao Glass exported to the United States automobile windshield from September 2001 to March 2003 was reduced from 11.80% to 0.13% (less than 0.5% as a zero dumping duty rate).

In response to this result, Fuyao showed cautious optimism.

Fu Yao has paid a cost of up to 30 million yuan in dealing with foreign anti-dumping investigations.

The case of the Wenzhou lighters, which attracted worldwide attention, took place in May 2002. The European Union issued the CR regulations restricting the export of lighters in China, but the law did not take effect until 2004.

In order to squeeze out Chinese lighters in a short time, the European Union proposed anti-dumping investigations on the disposable gas pocket lighters exported to China in June 2002.

The Wenzhou smoking and smoking Industry Association organized 16 enterprises to fight jointly and ended in July 2003. It became the first victory after China's accession to the WTO to deal with CR regulations and anti-dumping litigation. It is also the first case that the local folk Industry Association organized the small and medium enterprises small products anti-dumping lawsuit.

The EU imposed anti-dumping duties on imported lighters two times in 1995 and 1999, while the Wenzhou lighters did not raise the corresponding lawsuit. The anti-dumping litigation cost budget was as high as 2 million yuan, which lasted 1 years and 1 months.

In February 13, 2002, the US International Trade Commission (USITC) and the US Department of Commerce (DOC) received an application from the American Association of bearing manufacturers (ABMA) to conduct anti-dumping investigations on ball bearing products and parts from China.

Ball bearings, which are widely used in mechanical industry and pportation industry, are one of the bulk electromechanical products exported to the United States for more than 100 million US dollars a year.

The anti-dumping investigation application submitted by ABMA involves more than US $300 million in exports to the United States.

It was only two months after China formally joined the WTO. The US ABMA used the trade protection measures permitted by the WTO rules for the first time to stop Chinese products.

Once a Chinese ball bearing enterprise loses its lawsuit, it will face 17% to 246% anti-dumping duty. After that, it will accept DOC's annual review of the case every year, and DOC will decide the annual anti-dumping duty rate again.

Therefore, losing a lawsuit means that China's ball bearing enterprises will be gradually squeezed out of the US.

。

At the hearing of the USITC industry injury investigation held in March 6, 2003, China promptly adjusted its strategy and counterattacked ABMA with a large amount of facts and evidence which were irrefutable.

In the early morning of April 4, 2003, the US International Trade Commission confirmed that the Chinese ball bearings did not cause any harm to the American bearing industry with a total of 4 to 0 absolute majority.

At this point, the anti-dumping lawsuit against China's ball bearing products ended with the victory of the China machinery and electronics chamber of Commerce Machinery Foundation Branch.

In March 2005, the EU ruled that the dumping of China's chemical fiber cloth industry would impose an anti-dumping duty ranging from 20% to 85.3%.

This momentum seems to continue in 2006.

Asian and African developing countries are facing new frictions in China's anti dumping, and India and other countries have become a major anti-dumping agent against China.

China has become the biggest victim of anti-dumping investigations and anti-dumping measures. Apart from its low production cost, strong competitive advantage and sustained and rapid growth in exports, it has also been a pressure on other countries and is still in the "market economy status" of China.

In 2001, as a compromise, when China joined the WTO, it agreed to be treated as a "non market economy" country within 15 years in anti-dumping cases against its exports.

This compromise made China vulnerable to anti-dumping attacks. In anti-dumping investigations, some countries did not take the domestic price of Chinese goods as the criterion, but referred to the price factor of the "substituting country", which led to absurd practice of calculating the normal price of Chinese products with the labor force in Malaysia, the coal price in India and the freight rate in Ganges RIver.

This also makes China's international legal and policy environment for complying with anti-dumping investigations more complicated.

In March 2006, the EU imposed an anti-dumping duty of up to 44.66% on China's color TV, which is undoubtedly a fatal blow to domestic color TV, whose main competitiveness is price advantage.

At that time, many color TV manufacturers pessimistic said, "China's CRT access to the EU market has been completely closed."

In 2006, China's air conditioning enterprises were placed on a "dumping" investigation in Turkey. Turkey indicated that it would investigate anti-dumping cases against several Chinese air conditioning enterprises, and the amount involved would exceed 30 million dollars.

The Chinese companies involved in this case are AUX, CHIGO, GREE, Midea, Galanz, Kelon, Hualing, TCL, Changhong and so on.

In the announcement of the Turkey foreign trade department in 2006, Turkey once again impolitely directed the Chinese air conditioning enterprises.

The amount involved is as high as 100 million yuan.

On March 23, 2006 Beijing time, the European Commission approved import tariffs on leather shoes made by China and Vietnam, and the European Union decided that the leather shoes of the two countries were in the EU market at an unlawful low price.

According to this decision, in the 6 months from April 7th, the EU's anti-dumping duties on Chinese leather shoes will gradually increase, and will eventually shift from the current 4.8% to 19.4%. The anti-dumping duty on Vietnamese leather shoes will be pferred from 4.2% to 16.8%.. However, leather children's shoes and high-tech sports shoes are not listed here. EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson subsequently issued a statement that the EU did not target the competitive advantages of China and Vietnam, only unfair trade distortions.

In June 2006, the India customs made a preliminary investigation into the anti-dumping investigation of the S ilk Fab r IC 20 grams to 100 grams. The result is that the Chinese products are taxed and the 2.09 to 6.15 US dollars / meter is deducted from the CIF price, that is to say, the imported products below the minimum price are taxed according to the difference.

Nanjing's foreign trade and Economic Cooperation Bureau official said, according to this argument, the interests of Jiangsu's Silkworm farmers will be hit hard. Jiangsu's annual exports of $about 20000000 will be seriously affected.

In 2007, China was the largest producer of citric acid in the world, with an annual output of 500 thousand tons, and more than 4 of the citric acid Market in the EU came from China.

It is understood that in the anti-dumping case, there are nearly 20 enterprises. The most influential ones are Anhui Fengyuan biochemical and Lu Xin hi tech. Both are listed companies. Huayuan bio Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. is also affected.

In this regard, Fengyuan biochemical and Lu Xin high tech announced in its announcement that in order to protect the interests of investors, they will actively respond.

In China, the production capacity of citric acid is 220 thousand tons / year.

In its announcement, it said that about 40% of the citric acid products produced by the company were exported to the European Union. Therefore, the EU anti-dumping case will bring some uncertainties to the citric acid products' operation in the European Union market. The success of this lawsuit will have a certain impact on the company's business performance.