"China'S Shoe Exports To Europe" Is Expected To Take A Turn For The Better.

　　進入5月，此前一直陷入困境的“中國輸歐皮鞋案”峰回路轉。

In May 4th, the European Union High Court accepted the deadline for China's shoe companies to sue the European Commission's litigation documents and relevant evidence materials. In recent 4 years, Zhang Ning, a professor of law at National School of Administration, told reporters on that day that 5 Chinese shoe companies such as AOKANG shoe Limited by Share Ltd and Zhejiang had appealed to the EU high court earlier. On the other hand, on the 20 day last month, the Chinese delegation stationed in WTO formally requested the world trade organization to set up an expert group to investigate and decide whether the anti-dumping measures taken by the EU to China's leather shoes were against international trade rules. If the Chinese side again requested such a request at the WTO dispute settlement body meeting later this month, the expert group will be established automatically.

Zhang Ning said that the collective appeal of Chinese shoe enterprises to the European Court of justice and China's appeal to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism are to protect trade rights from two channels, namely, the private sector and the official sector.

To the European Union High Court and the establishment of dispute settlement expert group, it indicates that the two channels have entered the final stage.

She also said that although the case is still in progress, China is "very likely to win in the end, especially in the dispute settlement mechanism".

The good quality and low price of China's exports have been seen all over the world.

However, for Chinese leather shoes manufacturers, their export to the European Union has been constantly bramble.

In the winter of 2003, the footwear products of more than 20 Chinese manufacturers were set ablaze in Rome, Italy. In September 17th of next year, a larger scale "shoe burning incident" took place in the eastern city of Elche.

In July 2005, the European Union formally launched anti-dumping investigation on China's export leather shoes.

The nightmare of Chinese shoes is coming.

In October 2006, the European Commission formally announced that it would levy anti-dumping duties on leather shoes from China for a two-year period with a duty rate of 16.5%. In December 2009, it again decided to extend the anti-dumping duty on Chinese leather shoes for 15 months, and the tax rate remained unchanged at 16.5%, and it began to implement in January this year.

According to press reports, in 2006, China's footwear products accounted for about 52% of the world's total, while the EU has always been the largest export market for Chinese footwear, especially leather shoes.

According to statistics from the China light industry technology import and export chamber, the total sales volume of footwear products exported to Europe reached 1 billion 780 million euros last year, and this amount exceeded 2 billion euros during the peak period.

Since the implementation of the anti-dumping duty measures by the EU, Chinese shoe enterprises have been significantly adversely affected. According to the statistics of the footwear association of China Leather Industry Association, compared with 2006, the output of China's leather shoes exported to Europe decreased by 20%, or about 40 million pairs last year, representing a reduction of about 20000 jobs, and the total export volume decreased by about 15%.

Even Zhejiang AOKANG, the largest and most competitive private shoe manufacturer in China, has seen its export growth drop from 30% to 10%.

To this end, a number of shoe companies put forward strategies to move westward into Russia, South to Southeast Asia, and Latin America, but are subject to factors such as residents' income and consumption preferences. These areas tend to be more receptive to leather footwear, but the market space for leather shoes is rather limited. The EU leather shoes market is becoming more and more important.

In view of the obvious trade protectionism policy of anti-dumping duty, a group of brave Chinese shoe enterprises began to choose to take up legal weapons to fight. In October 17, 2006, Chinese shoe companies such as Zhejiang AOKANG formally introduced the European Commission to the European Court of justice.

   　　 行業協會與政府全力支持再訴

Behind the collective action of Chinese shoe enterprises, China's relevant industry associations have been playing a close role in organization and coordination.

As early as the Spanish "shoe burning incident" occurred, the China Leather Industry Association issued a voice at the very first time. In response to the EU anti-dumping duty, the Leather Association Shoe Association is the four sides running for good offices. On the one hand, it actively strengthens the self-discipline of the industry enterprises, and on the other hand, actively supports the safeguarding actions of Chinese shoe enterprises.

The footwear branch of the China light industry technology import and export chamber is closely related to enterprises and relevant government departments, paying full attention to and participating in the litigation process.

However, this war of rights is bound to be a tough battle.

Before October last year, Chinese enterprises had not yet won a precedent in the European Court of law on trade disputes.

After a lengthy litigation and trial process, in March 15th this year, after the European Union member made a decision on anti-dumping duty on the extension of Chinese leather shoes, the court of first instance of the European court dismissed the suit request from Chinese shoe enterprises, and supported the European Commission to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on footwear products from China.

In response, Wang Ying, Secretary General of the footwear branch of the China light industry technology import and Export Chamber of Commerce, said: "after the ruling came down, we felt very disappointed and very angry.

It is not easy for Chinese enterprises to initiate litigation. The result of losing the first trial is a great blow to the morale of the Chinese shoe enterprises and the future situation.

We encourage enterprises to continue to appeal and stick to it. "

On the grounds of losing the lawsuit, the Chinese lawyer who was responsible for the case pointed out that the EU court was obviously unfair. During the process of interpreting the anti-dumping provisions, it ignored the large amount of evidence submitted by the Chinese shoe enterprises, and completely based on the fact that the Commission of the European Union went to AOKANG and other Chinese shoe enterprises in January 2009 for on-site verification.

In fact, the cost analysis method of exporting footwear products to Chinese enterprises is not accurate.

Wei Ya Fei, director of the office of Shoe Association of China Leather Association, also supports the continued appeal of Chinese shoe enterprises.

He believes that on the one hand, there are many doubtful points in the first instance of the European Court of justice. On the other hand, after the Chinese government starts the trade settlement terminal mechanism, it is very necessary for Chinese enterprises to express their attitudes and positions so as to promote the mutual promotion of the two channels.

China's business sector has also been firmly supporting the efforts of Chinese shoe companies to safeguard their rights.

In the early October 2006, the European Union just decided to impose anti-dumping duties. The Ministry of Commerce issued a statement that the European Commission had violated the WTO free and fair trade principle in the investigation, and China will retain the right to take corresponding measures. Gao Hucheng, Vice Minister of Commerce, made a clear statement on the day when the 5 Chinese shoe companies filed a collective complaint with the European Union Court. "Respect and support the appeal of Chinese shoe enterprises".

More importantly, at the end of last year, the EU again decided to extend the time limit for anti-dumping duties. China finally launched the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and promoted the fair and just solution of this trade dispute from the government level.

 　　   世貿爭端解決機制原告勝訴率高

According to Zhang Ning, the current WTO dispute settlement mechanism can be divided into bilateral consultation, mediation and mediation, the establishment of expert group investigation, appeal review and other procedures.

In the 60 days of bilateral consultations and mediation and mediation still can not be consistent, the prosecution has the right to request the establishment of an expert group to investigate disputes.

She said: "the expert group is the core procedure of the dispute settlement mechanism, or when it comes to the establishment of the expert group, it really started the dispute settlement process under the WTO multilateral trading system."

It is understood that the dispute case expert group is generally composed of 3 experts. In principle, the final report should be submitted within 6 months (up to no more than 9 months) for the award of the dispute settlement body.

Zhang Ning told reporters that the "reverse consensus" decision-making model adopted by the dispute settlement body for the report of the expert group is that unless all the members of the dispute settlement body are unanimous, the relevant resolution shall be deemed to have passed.

This decision model means that in fact, the panel report will be automatically passed, which maximally excludes the possibility of individual member states conducting political review or improper interference with expert group reports, and greatly strengthens the judicial nature of the panel. "

Zhang Ning also said that within a certain period of time for the expert group to submit a report, a contending party could appeal against the report of the expert group and be accepted by a standing appeal body composed of 7 persons. However, the scope of the appeal is limited to the legal issues referred to in the report of the expert group and the legal interpretation made by the panel.

The appellate body may maintain, amend or revoke the conclusion of the panel of experts, and will become the final ruling, and the parties shall accept it unconditionally unless the dispute settlement body is again unanimously opposed by "reverse consensus".

Zhang Ning said that the dispute settlement mechanism has formed WT0's unique "two trial final judgment system", which has strong judicial system nature and enhanced the authority of the dispute settlement mechanism.

At the same time, the rules and nature of the existing dispute settlement mechanism also determine the "high rate of plaintiff".

In particular, some of the protection provisions for developing countries make the plaintiff winning rate in developing countries even higher.

According to the reporter, since 1995, the average plaintiff winning rate of all WTO member states under the dispute settlement mechanism is about 86%, and the overall success rate of developing countries as plaintiffs is as high as 93%.

According to the experts, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism does not have any partiality for the plaintiff, because any party can resort to this mechanism if he thinks he is being treated unfairly and unreasonably in the trade act. At the same time, before entering the expert group procedure, he can also reach agreement on the 60 day bilateral consultation under the dispute settlement mechanism or through mediation mediation. In fact, most trade disputes are also resolved in this link.

If we enter the expert group procedure, to a large extent, we must say that there is "grievance" in this case and need someone to uphold justice. This is precisely the purpose of WTO's commitment to establishing a fair and just international trade and economic relations and dispute settlement mechanism.

In fact, even within the EU, many people of insight criticize the EU's obvious trade protectionism, and British business secretary Mandelson said at the beginning of the year that extending anti-dumping duties on footwear products in China and Vietnam could damage the long-term business relationship between Europe and the two countries.

"One consequence of the economic crisis is the decline in the enthusiasm of EU countries for free trade.

Among EU Member States, a more introverted attitude is growing. "

Therefore, whether the "anti-dumping measures against Chinese leather shoes exported to Europe" can be achieved through the joint efforts of China's official and private sectors, and the rational use of existing international rules to break the invisible barriers of trade protectionism and action in developed countries will be the biggest point in the coming year.

　　    中國皮鞋歐盟遭遇記

From 1995 to 2005, the EU imposed a quota limit of 10 years on China's export of leather shoes.

In September 17, 2004, a "shoe burning incident" occurred in the eastern Spanish city of Elche.

In December 2004, the Italy Footwear Association formally appealed to the European Commission for anti-dumping investigations against all footwear products exported to the EU.

In June 30, 2005 and July 7th, the European Commission carried out anti-dumping investigation on China's labor safety shoes and some leather shoes.

In October 7, 2006, the European Union formally launched a 2 year anti-dumping duty on leather shoes originating in China.

In October 17, 2006, 5 enterprises such as Zhejiang AOKANG filed an appeal in the European Court of justice on the grounds that the EU imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese leather shoes.

In October 2, 2008, the European Commission announced that the EU will temporarily maintain anti-dumping duties on leather shoes produced by the two countries as a result of the initiation of anti-dumping review procedures for leather shoes in China and Vietnam.

The decision means that the EU's 16.5% year anti-dumping duty on leather shoes and children's shoes imported from China in 2006 will be extended for another 12 to 15 months.

In December 22, 2009, the EU decided to extend the anti-dumping measures for another 15 months.

In March 15, 2010, the EU Court ruled that 5 Chinese shoe companies were defeated, and the relevant enterprises later said they would continue appealing to the high court of the European Union.

In April 20, 2010, the Chinese delegation to the WTO formally requested the world trade organization to set up an expert group to investigate whether EU anti-dumping measures against Chinese leather shoes violated international trade rules.

　　 世貿組織爭端解決機制程序

As one of the core mechanisms under the multilateral trading system of WTO, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism plays an important role in safeguarding fair and impartiality of trade activities among Member States.

The procedural aspects of the dispute settlement mechanism include the following 5 components:

(1) mandatory bilateral consultations (or multilateral consultations and many side consultations)

Negotiated settlement of disputes is the main way for WTO members to resolve trade disputes.

It is a way for two or more than two members to engage in international negotiations in order to get problems or achieve understanding.

After the occurrence of a dispute, a request for consultations shall be notified to the dispute settlement body (DSB) and the relevant Council and committee. The members who have received the consultation shall reply within 10 days from the date of receipt of the application and consult in 30 days (within 10 days of emergency situations, such as those that are easily decomposed), and settle disputes within 60 days (within 20 days of emergency).

(two) selective mediation, mediation, mediation and arbitration.

During the 60 day period of settling disputes, mediation, mediation and mediation are the procedures for voluntary execution by both sides of the dispute, and may be initiated by any party at any time and at any time.

Mediation is the third party's provision of conditions conducive to contacts and coercion for disputes parties, and puts forward their own proposals or conveys opinions from all sides, prompting the two sides to carry out consultations or renegotiation.

Conciliation refers to the fact that the parties submit a dispute to a committee composed of a number of members. On the basis of the investigation, the committee puts forward a proposal for settling disputes, which is not legally binding.

Therefore, the contending party has no obligation to accept.

Mediation is not only the convenience of the third parties to provide negotiations or renegotiation for the parties to the dispute, but also puts forward the conditions for negotiation as the basis for negotiations and personally takes the lead in the negotiations, and puts forward proposals to urge the two sides to reach an agreement to resolve the dispute.

If the two sides of the dispute agree that the three ways mentioned above can not solve the dispute, then the establishment of the expert group can be put forward.

As an alternative way to resolve trade disputes among members, an arbitration agreement reached between the two sides of the dispute is reached. The case is submitted to arbitration and the result is notified to the DSB and the Council and the Committee of the agreement concerned.

(three) a fair and independent expert group.

When negotiations, mediation, mediation and mediation are unable to resolve disputes, DSB will be submitted to the expert group for application.

The expert group is usually composed of about 3 to 5 senior government and non-governmental personnel with a wealth of knowledge and experience in the field of international trade, whose responsibilities are to make an objective assessment of the facts, the applicability and consistency of the law (agreement) to be dealt with in accordance with its working procedures and strict time limits, and to submit a report on the findings of the DSB and a proposal for a successful settlement of the dispute.

(four) the appeal review process shall be appealed to the standing appellate body established by DSB when the dispute party disagrees with the panel's report and notifications DSB of the decision of the appeal or DSB's unanimous objection to the adoption of the report of the expert group.

The appeal can only be raised by the contending party, and the reasons for the appeal are limited to the legal issues referred to in the panel report and the legal interpretation made by the panel.

The Appellate Body's report shall be made within 60 days from the date of the appeal decision DSB, and the maximum length of the case shall not exceed 90 days.

The Appellate Body's report can confirm, modify or oppose the results and conclusions of the panel.

The permanent appellate body is composed of 7 widely recognized representatives of the world trade organization who are recognized as authoritative persons with expertise in law, international trade and related agreements for a period of 4 years.

The agency is not affiliated with any government.

(five) dispute settlement bodies form consensus and approval.

DSB is a broadly representative political institution.

In the settlement of disputes between WTO members, whether the report of the panel or the Appellate Body's report is not legally valid without the approval of DSB, any party to the dispute has the right to refuse to accept it.

Of course, DSB decisions should be made in the form of consensus.