The Successful Experience Of Yangzhou Textile Enterprises Appealing To The US Department Of Commerce Is Worth Learning From.

< p > an obscure Yangzhou a target= "_blank" href= "http://www.91se91.com/" > textile < /a > small enterprises, spending millions of huge sums of money, finally won the "half court" lawsuit, and the lawsuit against the United States Department of Commerce.

< /p >

< p > recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Commerce in the narrow strip weaving case against the fact that the United States Department of Commerce appealed to the Yangzhou Department of Commerce Limited.

The appeal decision overturned the tax rate calculation method that the US International Trade (market area) court had previously identified as a simple weighted average tax rate for Chinese textile enterprises.

The significance of the case is that the United States is a country of case law. It has a narrow range of Yangzhou a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/" > ribbon < /a > small businesses for anti-dumping cases, which is of reference significance for the whole Chinese industry and even enterprises to sue the United States anti-dumping investigation in the future.

< /p >

< p > August 6, 2009, the US Department of Commerce launched an anti-dumping investigation on the narrow ribbon originating in the mainland of China and Taiwan, and conducted countervailing investigations on the narrow ribbon in mainland China.

In July 13, 2010, the US Department of Commerce made a final decision on the anti-dumping case of China's narrow ribbon, forcing the respondent enterprise Yao Ming ribbon Jewelry Co., Ltd. to have a tax rate of 0. Another mandatory respondent company, Ningbo Jintian Trade Co., Ltd. was judged to be a non cooperative enterprise, with a AFA tax rate of 247.65%, and a separate tax rate applying for an enterprise tax rate of 123.83%.

< /p >

Yang Chen, lawyer of Jincheng Tongda law firm, said, "the calculation plan of the 123.83% tax rate is very unscientific." P

In this case, in addition to the mandatory two enterprises, the other enterprises' tax rate is 247.65% and the lowest "0" is simply eliminated, that is 123.83%.

Zhang Suoming, chairman of the board, said that for a small business like them, if the tax rate is above 20%, the business can no longer do it, let alone a tax rate of up to 123.83%.

The tax rate of up to 123.83% has blocked more than 90% of China's narrow ribbon enterprises' export to the US market.

< /p >

< p > < strong > Yangzhou small business owners argue that < /strong > < /p >

< p > for the then Yangzhou Bai Shi De, the export market share of the United States accounted for about 15% of the total turnover of the company, which had an impact on the overall development of the company, but not to the point of survival.

Because of the serious discrepancy with the facts, Zhang decided to argue that "there is no dumping at all according to our cost and sales profit."

< /p >

In 2011, P was commissioned by China's Jincheng Tongda law firm and the GDLSK law firm of the United States, accusing the US Department of Commerce.

Yang Chen, a domestic lawyer who represents the case, thinks that when the US Department of Commerce calculates the separate tax rates, the practice of using adverse access to the de facto tax rate is in conformity with the provisions of the law. However, the fact information shows that the US Department of Commerce calculates 123.83% of the abnormal high tax rate is unreasonable, which makes the separate tax rate a "punitive" tax rate.

< /p >

After the retrial of the US Commerce Department (P), the so-called "sales unit price analysis" was carried out so as to draw the conclusion that the original practice was correct.

He is unhappy about this.

In 2012, the US Department of Commerce was again appealed to the International Trade Court.

The court of international trade has ruled that the Ministry of commerce can only make such a ruling because of the limited information collected in the administrative process and the lack of sufficient sales information.

Zhang did not recognize the second court decision of the US Court of international trade.

After that, he appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of appeal, and again brought the commerce department to court.

< /p >

In May 20th this year, the court of appeal of the Federal Circuit of the United States appealed to Yangzhou Baishi gift craft co., Ltd. (Baishi) to prosecute the US Department of Commerce for the use of the fact that the tax rate was calculated on the basis of the fact that the tax rate was calculated in the narrow strip weaving anti-dumping case, and the appeal trial for Pepsi de P was made.

Although the Federal Circuit appeals court made an appeal trial for Pepsi, it only won the "half court" lawsuit for Yangzhou Baishi.

Because, as the highest court of trade in the United States, the court of appeal of the Federal Circuit of the United States can only determine the right and wrong actions of the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of the evidence provided by the law and the original defendant, and can not give the final tax rate calculation.

< /p >

"P" spent so long, spending about 1000000 yuan in litigation costs, suing the US Department of Commerce, finally won the half court case, the value is not worth it? Zhang Suoming, chairman of the company, is worth it.

In May this year, the United States planned to levy anti-dumping duties on China's plywood. In June, the EU imposed anti-dumping duties on China's photovoltaic industry. The situation was similar to that of < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > narrow webbing < /a >.

Moreover, if the US Department of Commerce gives an objective and fair tax rate, his small business and more narrow ribbon can also enter the US market once again.

< /p >

< p > in the recent US plywood case against China, the us a href= "http://www.91se91.com" > the Ministry of Commerce < /a > also used the simple average method to calculate the separate tax rates with the zero tax (including negligible tax rates) in its preliminary ruling.

It is reported that at present, lawyers have quoted a narrow ribbon case and asked the US business to rectify its calculation method.

< /p >