2010 China Shoes Decisive Battle EU Court (1)

2006 China footwear products Output accounts 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.

Under the repeated demands of the Chinese delegation, World Trade Organization A group of experts has been formally set up to investigate and decide whether the EU anti-dumping measures against China's leather shoes are against international trade rules.

Under the trend of trade protectionism and action trade barriers in the developed countries, China's civil and official authorities are looking forward to using the international rules of "two pronged approach" to end the EU's right. Chinese shoes More than ten years of unequal treatment.

The first trial law is doubtful.

This is actually "Chinese shoes" for a period of four years, "litigation resistance."

In July 2005, the European Union launched anti-dumping investigations involving Chinese leather shoes worth up to US $700 million. In October 7, 2006, the EU ruled that the dumping rate of Chinese shoes was 16.5%, and a two-year anti-dumping duty was imposed.

In December 2006, five Chinese shoe companies such as AOKANG, Tamar, golden shoe, new born port and WAN Bang filed a lawsuit against the European Court of first instance, requesting the cancellation of the anti-dumping duty, on the grounds that the EU's cost analysis of the footwear products exported to EU by Chinese enterprises is not accurate.

But 4 years later, in March 2010, it finally came to the conclusion: the European Court of first instance rejected the lawsuit filed by 5 Chinese shoe companies, and supported the EU to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on footwear products from China.

"By reading the verdict of the European Court of first instance, we found that the verdict was unfair." The Chinese lawyer, Pu Ling Chen, who represented the shoe case, told the China Commercial Daily reporter that in calculating the magnitude of damage, the EC's practice actually violated the first article of the EU anti-dumping regulations. When commenting on the EC's measures and calculation methods, the European Commission gave the Chinese enterprises an unreasonable time (5 days), and it did not meet the 10 day deadline stipulated by the regulations. The interpretation of the court of first instance was intriguing in interpreting the 3 and ninth 5 of the EU anti-dumping regulations.

However, four years after the "Anti Japanese War", the Chinese shoe companies that appeal to the European Court of justice have only left AOKANG one.

"The EU has imposed restrictions on leather shoes exported to China for nearly 15 years. This unequal treatment should come to a stop." Wang Zhentao, vice chairman of the China Leather Association and chairman of Zhejiang AOKANG footwear Limited by Share Ltd, said the reason why AOKANG continued to appeal to the EU high court is that the EU's discrimination against Chinese leather shoes is no longer tolerated, no matter from time to time or on the loss of Chinese leather shoes exports. There should be a conclusion. This is the reason why AOKANG continues its proceedings in the end of the legal process.

"If Chinese shoe companies continue to acquiescence, it will be a matter of course to take this inequality into account, and it will be very serious for the future export of Chinese leather shoes. Other countries initiated anti-dumping activities, such as Brazil, Turkey and Argentina. Wang Zhentao said, "Chinese shoe enterprises must learn to defend their own rights by law, otherwise the export of Chinese shoe enterprises will be destroyed in the future."

Pu Ling Chen also told the China Commercial Daily reporter, "because it is the last legal process, there is still a possibility of rejection, but no matter whether the final appeal will be rejected, the appeal can at least allow countries to take anti-dumping measures to see that Chinese enterprises are strengthening their awareness of the protection of their legitimate rights through the law." In the view of Pu Ling, the persistence of Chinese enterprises will help to reduce the probability of anti-dumping measures taken by importing countries.