Calculate The Normal Value Of A Product With A Single Price.

In November 30th, the US Department of Commerce issued an anti-dumping investigation final result on frozen and canned warm water shrimp from China and Vietnam. It was found that among the 4 sampling enterprises in 57 Chinese responding enterprises, the other 3 were below the normal sales value in the United States, except for the Zhanjiang couplet aquatic products.

The dumping rates of the 4 sampling enterprises were separately determined as follows: Zhanjiang State United fisheries 0.07% (regarded as zero tax rate), Shantou Hongyuan food 27.89%, Zhonglian aquatic product 84.93%, Yilin (HK capital) 82.27%.

Of the remaining 53 enterprises responding to the A questionnaire, 35 received a weighted average tax rate of 55.23%, while the remaining 18 were refused to be punished with a 112.81% punitive national uniform tax rate.

The US final ruling is disastrous for Chinese shrimp export enterprises.

The separate tax rate of Hongyuan food has increased by 20 percentage points (the initial tax rate is 7.67%). The separate tax rate of China Alliance fisheries and Yilin (HK) has decreased (the initial tax rate is 90.05% and 98.34%), but this is not very significant. For the products with less than 10% of the average profit margin, the 3 enterprises and all the enterprises with weighted average tax rates have actually been expelled from the US market. It is also understood that the Zhanjiang Union food and Shantou Hongyuan foods account for 20% of the total output of China's products. If the US initial ruling remains unchanged, China will lose 80% of the US market. Now Shantou's Hongyuan food is reversing, and it is estimated that China will lose 9 to the US market share. Compared with the initial ruling, Shantou

In response to the US Department of Commerce's anti-dumping decision on China's shrimp industry, the food and soil import and Export Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Chinese shrimp industry sent a letter to the US Secretary of Commerce, expressing the shock and disappointment of the verdict and its reasons.

Zhang Zhibiao, Deputy Secretary General of the food trade association, said that the US side chose India as an alternative country in the case, which is incredibly unreasonable in the adoption of the alternative price: persisting in using the average "single price" of all the shrimp products of a company to calculate the normal value of the products involved; persisting in using the average price of a company instead of an industry to calculate the normal value of the products involved, without the minimum representation; the alternative price chosen by the US is not within the time limit for investigation.

The US Department of Commerce arbitrarily chooses the price of an alternative country which violates the principle of "accuracy and fairness" of the US anti dumping law, and also violates the principle of WTO, and leads to the fact that the price of raw materials and whether or not to dump are different from the fact of trade.

The result of such a ruling by the US Department of commerce makes anyone question the fairness and justice of the US Department of Commerce.

The US New York Times published an editorial recently, saying: "the US Department of Commerce has a high tax rate of 113% on anti-dumping duties on Chinese and Vietnamese shrimp businesses.

The verdict is unfair.

Just because it is a non market economy country, the US Department of commerce can make an estimate of export cost in order to achieve the purpose of deciding dumping.

It is a very sad sign that the interests of domestic protectionism are so easy to damage US commitment to free trade and seriously harm consumers' interests and the entire national economy, the newspaper said.

The absurd anti-dumping case against Chinese shrimp is a most typical unfortunate case.

The newspaper also used the word "scandal" to comment on the case.