"Re Export" Chinese Shoes Or Anti-Dumping

When the EU imposed anti-dumping measures on China and Vietnam's leather shoes for two years, the EU postponed the call.

Recently, Vito Artioli (Vito Artioli), chairman of the Italy Footwear Industry Association (ANCI), told the media that Italy should ask the European Union to extend the anti-dumping period in view of the EU's anti-dumping measures against Chinese and Vietnamese footwear products will expire in October 6, 2008.

This is not the first time Italy has made such requests.

In March 2007, the European footwear Federation asked the Italy government to extend an anti-dumping duty to China and Vietnam to the European Union.

ANCI's former chairman Rossano Soldini (Rossano Soldini) also said that the standard period for anti-dumping duties should be 5 years instead of 2 years.

In July 2005, the European Commission decided to launch anti-dumping investigations on some footwear products originating in China, such as leather shoes and so on. It is also required by shoe manufacturers in Italy, France and Spain.

In October 6, 2006, the European Commission made anti-dumping duties on leather shoes originating in China and Vietnam. China was charged the highest 16.5% tax rate, Vietnam was 10%, and the validity period was 2 years instead of the usual 5 year period.

Earlier, public opinion held that the response of Chinese shoe companies and the opposition of EU footwear importers and retailers would put pressure on the European Commission, thereby prompting the European Commission to make a final ruling on Chinese enterprises.

In an interview with our newspaper reporter, Massimo Donda, chairman of the Italy footwear retailers Association, also said that many European shoe traders wrote to the European Commission in the past year of levying anti-dumping duties, hoping to stop levying taxes on China, though no result, but he was optimistic.

However, the chairman of the ANCI was confident in the interview that the proposal of Italy would be approved by the European Union and the uncertainty of the case increased.

It is noteworthy that Vito Artioli, who called for an extension of the anti-dumping period, is also a shoemaker in Italy.

Public information shows that he runs the famous Italy leather shoes brand Artioli, which is famous for its hand-made shoes, and its price is high.

As for the possible delay of anti-dumping measures, the representatives of Chinese shoe enterprises participating in anti-dumping suits responded calmly.

Guo Weiwen, spokesman of Wan Bang shoe industry limited, told reporters that they had heard that some EU footwear manufacturers wanted to apply for the extension of anti-dumping measures. In the process of responding, they had confidence in their operation and did not think there was dumping. They also submitted relevant materials for reexamination, but have not received any reply so far. Chinese shoe companies have filed a lawsuit with the European Court of justice for their dissatisfaction with the ruling of the European Commission, but it has lasted for more than a year, and the time has not yet been determined.

She believes that this incident seems to have gone beyond the scope of the economy.

Wu Zhenchang, chairman of Guangdong Chuangxin footwear industry, pointed out that the EU hopes to extend the anti-dumping period with its logic.

Because the recent appreciation of the euro has increased the pressure of EU shoe makers.

But he believes that this is not a problem of shoemaking an industry, all sectors will encounter similar problems, therefore, light protection footwear industry is not enough.

Because of the Levy of anti-dumping duties, Guo Weiwen admitted that they had a great impact on the export of leather shoes to the EU, coupled with the constant appreciation of the renminbi, the national macro-control and the recently promulgated new labor law and other factors, the overall cost of the 10000 shoe industry increased by about 10%-20%.

Under the influence of anti-dumping measures, customs statistics show that in 2007, China exported 180 million pairs of leather shoes to the EU, down 8.9%.

Vito Artioli also said that in 2007, China and Vietnam's footwear exports to Italy fell by 15.4%.

But he also pointed out that footwear imports from Macao and Kampuchea increased by 72.8% and 90.7% respectively in 2007.

In his view, this is a measure taken by China and Vietnam to avoid anti-dumping.

This is also the main basis for the chairman of the Italy footwear industry association to advocate "extending the anti-dumping period".

Li Peng, Secretary General of the footwear association of Asia, does not deny that many companies actually import raw materials from China to avoid anti-dumping duties, and then to factories in Kampuchea, Indonesia and other places. Sometimes they operate the last step and then label the local labels.

This mode of operation is commonly referred to as "entrepot trade".

But these actions seem to have alerted the EU, which entrepot risks.

Vito Artioli said that they were checking that some leather shoes manufacturers in China and Vietnam had entered the EU market with "Declaration of artificial leather shoes or vamp".

In 2007, some shoemaking enterprises in Macao told reporters that the EU also went to Macao several times to investigate whether Chinese shoe enterprises re exported to Macao.

According to Wu Zhenchang, chairman of Chuangxin shoes industry, some Chinese shoemaker pferred to Southeast Asia and other cheaper places to open factories, not entirely because the EU imposed anti-dumping duties, but the relevant policies promulgated by the state had a greater impact on them.

Many shoe brands with no brand have been hit, while some brand shoe companies are likely to grow faster.