Chinese Shoe Defense Is Rare And Time-Consuming

An hour and a half of the hearing, but let the Chinese shoe enterprises wait like years. "Because of the evidence, the hearing was extended for half an hour! In the past, the EU refused to delay for a second. " On the phone, Wu Zhenchang, the founder of the "EU anti dumping alliance against China's shoes" (referred to as the "response alliance") in Brussels, was very tired. He told our reporter that he had not had a good rest for many days from pleading at the hearing to receiving an endless stream of media interviews. Next, he will also meet with interest allies like EU retailers and wholesalers. From 10:00 am to 11:30 am on the 20th in Brussels, the EU anti-dumping hearing on China's footwear products was held as scheduled. Wu Zhenchang and an expert group composed of legal advisers, European lawyers and economic analysts engaged by the Chinese side conducted a "non injury defense" on the EU's anti-dumping of Chinese shoes. The final verdict was released 10 months ago. Wu Zhenchang said that the hearing was extended from one hour to one and a half hours because of sufficient evidence. This is a rare sign from the EU. EU officials also said that the European Commission will seriously study and re examine the market economy status application documents submitted by more than 140 enterprises that did not obtain market economy status in the last round. The response alliance can also submit new evidence to the European Commission at any time, or re apply for a hearing. According to the EU's anti-dumping arbitration, the EU's representatives will present their conclusions on the anti-dumping of shoes in July and October at the latest. The EU hopes to make use of the opportunity of the hearing, on the one hand, to continue to appeal to the European Commission, and to provide the EU with the relevant report completed by the EU expert group to comprehensively elaborate the position of Chinese enterprises; on the other hand, it should contact EU importers and retailers to strive for a positive impact on the EU's decision-making. The European side was surprised by the professional data. Wu Zhenchang also said that the early detailed preparation work had achieved results in the hearing. "We did not complain, but spoke with data. The whole process was to express that China's imported shoes did not have an impact on the European footwear industry. These eight professional investigators were surprised. It is reported that in order to prepare for the hearing, a lot of preparatory work has been done for the alliance, and four Chinese and foreign law firms have been hired to provide professional services. At the hearing, the British consulting company hired by the alliance used very detailed data to analyze the operating conditions of 10 complaint enterprises selected by the EU. It was proved that the decline of the performance of these 10 enterprises had no direct relationship with the entry of Chinese shoes into the EU market. The decision of EU to impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese enterprises on the ground of regional market impact did not have a foundation. In the WTO hearing, EU's anti-dumping practice also violated the provisions of the WTO agreement. First of all, in the preliminary ruling of the European Union, the market economy status of all Chinese responding enterprises was rejected without careful examination. When determining the anti-dumping duty rate, the separate tax rate was not adopted, and the unified provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed on the whole industry, which was in violation of the WTO Agreement and the EU's own legal provisions. Secondly, the EU conducts the survey based on the data of 2004, which is not referential. Since the unilateral quota system was still implemented in the EU in 2004, it is unfair to carry out an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese shoes only half a year after the cancellation of shoes quota in 2005. Third, the European Union takes the Chinese government's accusation of giving enterprises preferential tax treatment. In fact, all over the world, including within the EU, it is common for the government to give various preferential policies to export enterprises. [data link] the growth rate of Guangdong shoes exports to Europe has dropped by nearly 40%. On March 23, this year, the European Commission announced that it would impose a half year temporary anti-dumping duty on leather shoes made in China and Vietnam from April 7. If the EU's final decision still "maintains the original judgment", the time limit for imposing anti-dumping duties on Chinese shoes will be as high as five years. According to the "penalty ticket" issued by the EU, from April 7 this year, the EU has imposed temporary anti-dumping duties on some leather shoes produced by China: 4.8% from April 7 to June 1, 9.7% from June 2 to July 13, 14.5% from July 14 to September 14 and 19.4% from September 15. This makes it hard for some small and medium-sized enterprises mainly exporting to the EU to bear. According to the data of Guangzhou Customs, from April to may, Guangdong, an important leather shoes production base, exported 11.869 million pairs of leather shoes to the European Union, with a value of 81.154 million US dollars. The increase in volume and value was 38.5% and 37.4% lower than that in January March respectively. [voice] China's "shoe incident" investigation started in 2005 and ended with the EU's provisional anti-dumping duty. The "shoe incident" is just the tip of the iceberg of trade disputes between China and the United States. From the perspective of future development, trade disputes between China and the United States will even exceed the intensity and frequency of trade disputes between China and the United States. The trade disputes between China and Europe are rooted in Europe's economic development, industrial structure, employment situation and China's awkward position in the international production network. With the expansion of EU Member States, the proportion of EU Member States' economic diversification is lower than that of EU member countries. The GDP per capita of Slovakia, Lithuania, Poland and Latvian ranked at the bottom is about half of the average level of the European Union. The proportion of manufacturing industry in the national economy is far more than that of the core countries of the European Union (EU). In particular, the manufacturing industry is concentrated in labor-intensive rather than technology-intensive and capital intensive manufacturing. These relatively backward countries not only compete with China in the international market outside the EU, but also are highly sensitive to the entry of Chinese products into the EU market. Once the EU's sanctions are taken, China's interests are bound to be stronger. Europe has a high unemployment rate, a rigid labor market and uneven development among countries. Ten years ago, the average unemployment rate in EU countries was around 10%, higher than that in the United States in the same period. After 10 years, the average unemployment rate in European countries is still around 9%. In some countries, such as the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland, unemployment rates have improved significantly, falling to lower levels than in the United States. Some other countries, even Germany, France, Italy and Spain, among the major European Union countries, still maintain a high unemployment rate of about 10%; on the one hand, it is difficult to match the unemployed with the vacant jobs, and the structural unemployment is serious. On the other hand, the wage elasticity of labor force is very small, and the mobility of labor force lags far behind the integration process of other aspects. Under the pressure of high unemployment, the EU has to repeatedly raise the banner of trade protection. Trade disputes originate from the trade pattern between China and Europe, which is determined by China's awkward position in the international production network. China plays the role of "transit station" in international production network from two aspects. On the one hand, China imports primary products from raw material producing countries such as East Asia, Africa and Latin America, produces manufactured goods in China, and then exports them to the ultimate consumer markets of the United States and the European Union. In essence, the export capacity of other countries is reflected in the EU market through China as an intermediary. In recent years, on the one hand, China's trade surplus with the United States and Europe is getting larger and larger, on the other hand, the trade deficit with other raw material producing countries is growing, which confirms this pattern of division of labor. China has been criticized by EU countries for dumping raw materials, and China has been accused of dumping raw materials. More importantly, China also acts as a "transit station" for developed countries. Manufacturers from the United States and the European Union invest and build factories in China, and the products produced return to their home countries for sale. This process is essentially the same as domestic production and domestic consumption of developed countries, but their own production capacity is counted above China's export capacity. If we trace the source according to the "origin" of enterprises and exclude the net exports created by foreign enterprises in China, China's trade surplus will be greatly reduced, or even trade deficit. This export-oriented FDI is also the root of China's "double surplus" pattern of balance of payments. The accumulation of foreign exchange reserves under the condition of double surplus has become an excuse for foreign parties to attack China's exchange rate manipulation and even implement trade sanctions. In fact, under the condition of double surplus, China and foreign countries have carried out two kinds of replacement: foreign exchange reserves brought by current account surplus mean that China exchanges foreign debt assets (mainly U.S. Treasury bonds) with trade commodities, and foreign exchange reserves brought by capital account surplus means that China exchanges equity assets with foreign debt assets. In particular, the huge welfare loss brought by the latter asset replacement to China is hard to say. It seems that China does not enjoy the benefits it deserves. In order to solve the deadlock faced by China, the only way is to promote Chinese enterprises to go abroad and jump out of the role of "transit station" of international production network. Only by realizing the two-way balanced flow of investment and trade, can we really utilize the domestic and foreign markets, domestic and foreign resources. The practical policy measures include two aspects: one is to cancel the asymmetry of "bonus in and limited out" in capital control, and the other is to cancel the asymmetry of "bonus out and limited income" in trade flow.