Re Export Trade, Chinese Shoe Products May Encounter Anti-Dumping

When the EU imposed anti-dumping measures on China and Vietnam's leather shoes for 2 years, there was a call for delay in the EU.

A few days ago, Vito Artioli, chairman of the Italy Footwear Industry Association (ANCI), said that since the anti-dumping measures imposed by the EU on Chinese and Vietnamese footwear products will expire in October 6, 2008, Italy should extend an anti-dumping request to the EU.

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.

Rossano Soldini, former chairman of ANCI, also said that the standard period for levying anti-dumping duties should be 5 years, not 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 manufacturers 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 decision on China's footwear enterprises.

MassimoDonda, chairman of the Italy footwear retailers Association, also said that in the 1 years of levying anti-dumping duties, many European shoe traders wrote to the European Commission that they wanted to stop levying taxes on China, though they had no results, but he was optimistic.

But chairman ANCI is confident that Italy's proposal will be approved by the European Union, which will increase the uncertainty of the case.

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.

It is reported that by anti-dumping measures, in 2007, China exported 180 million pairs of leather shoes to the EU, down 8.9%.

Guo Weiwen, spokesman of Wan Bang shoe industry Co., Ltd., said that some EU footwear manufacturers had heard that they wanted to apply for the extension of anti-dumping measures.

In the process of responding, Wan Bang has confidence in its operation, does not think there is a dumping problem, and has submitted relevant materials for review, but has not received any reply so far.

Chinese shoe companies have filed a lawsuit against the European Court of justice for their dissatisfaction with the ruling of the European Commission, but it has lasted for more than 1 years, and the time has yet to be determined for the time being. The event seems to have gone beyond the scope of the economy.

Because the anti-dumping duty has been imposed, the export of leather shoes to the EU has been greatly affected. With the continuous appreciation of RMB, the national macro-control and the recent labor law, the overall cost of the shoe industry has risen by 10% to 20%.

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 the EU shoe manufacturers.

But this is not a problem of shoemaking industry. All industries will encounter similar problems. Therefore, the light protection footwear industry is not enough.

In 2007, China and Vietnam's footwear exports to Italy fell by 15.4%.

Over the same period, Italy's imports of shoes from Macao and Kampuchea increased by 72.8% and 90.7% respectively.

Vito Artioli believes that 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".

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, the EU also went to Macao several times to investigate whether Chinese shoe companies 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 domestic shoemaking enterprises.

A lot of shoemaking enterprises without brand have been strongly impacted, and some brand shoemaking enterprises may get faster growth.