The EU'S Anti Dumping War AOKANG Won The Industry Congratulations.

Recently, Zhejiang AOKANG shoe industry The Limited by Share Ltd received the verdict issued by the high court of the European Union, and finally ruled that the court of first instance of the European Union tried to use AOKANG's defense against EU anti-dumping cases. The individual legal provisions were misused, and there was a lack of justice. The final judgment was that China AOKANG won the lawsuit. The lawsuit, which lasted for 6 years, finally won, which provided a useful reference for Chinese enterprises to actively cope with international trade barriers. Wang Zhentao, chairman of AOKANG group, said he was proud of winning the anti-dumping case. Chinese enterprises should actively respond to unfair or unfair trade rulings.

　　 7 years lawsuit "marathon", AOKANG laughs last.

In November 18, 2012, the AOKANG shoe Limited by Share Ltd of Zhejiang received the verdict issued by the high court of the European Union in November 15th, ruling AOKANG v. the European Union. leather shoes The interpretation of certain provisions of the European Union's anti-dumping regulations related to the case measures is correct and overturned the first instance ruling made by the ordinary court of the European Union. The high court held that the first instance was inappropriate and the European Union would compensate AOKANG for about 5000000 yuan. This marks the 6 time that AOKANG, the shoe industry of China, has finally won the plea of EU anti-dumping. AOKANG chairman Wang Zhentao said that since receiving the sentence, his personal cell phone has received more than 200 congratulations on the phone.

In July 2005, following the lifting of the quota restrictions imposed on China's leather shoes for 14 years, the European Commission, in view of China's accession to the WTO organization, has re adjusted its strategy to initiate anti-dumping investigations on Chinese leather shoes.

In October 7, 2006, the European Union spoke about China. Shoemaking industry The implementation of the two-year anti-dumping measures has imposed a 16.5% high anti-dumping duty and more than 1200 Chinese enterprises involved.

In the face of the European Union's anti-dumping stick, in October 23rd of the same year, AOKANG joined 4 shoe companies, including Tamar and golden shoe, to file a lawsuit against the European Court of first instance.

In March 2010, the EU's junior court dismissed the lawsuit filed by 5 Chinese shoe companies such as AOKANG and announced that China's shoe companies failed in the first instance. In April 8, 2010, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce appealed to the WTO, requesting WTO to set up an expert group to coordinate the settlement of the unfair international trade dispute launched by the European Union.

Under heavy pressure, 4 shoe companies, such as TIMA and golden shoe, withdrew from litigation.

In the face of this grim situation, AOKANG resolutely decided to "fight down" and continue appealing to the high court of the European Union.

In March 31, 2011, the anti-dumping measures expired for 15 months expired. The European Union announced that it had abolished 16.5% of the high anti-dumping duty on Chinese leather shoes from April 1st of that year. The unreasonable trade protection measures, which have lasted for nearly 5 years, have finally come to an end.

However, this is only a unilateral lawsuit by the European Union to terminate the sanctions, but it has not yet concluded the legal case against dumping. After AOKANG's active efforts, the EU high court finally issued a judgment in November 15, 2012, and the final award was AOKANG.

　　 Chinese enterprises increase competition weight by dropping 16.5% surtax.

According to legal experts, the Chinese enterprise's defense against the EU's anti dumping "foreign lawsuit" has gained the direct benefits: first, whoever loses the lawsuit will bear all the litigation costs, which is expected to be as high as 5 million yuan. Two, the EU should refund the anti-dumping duty that has been collected for 3 years to Chinese enterprises and importers. More importantly, it provides a reference for Chinese enterprises to sue anti-dumping cases.