People'S Republic Of China Ministry Of Commerce On New Products Exporters' Re Verdict Ruling On Imports Of Automobile Products Originating In Nissan (North America) Automobile Co., Ltd.

< p > the scope of the reexamination product is in line with that of the Ministry of Commerce's Announcement No. eighty-fourth of 2011. < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/" > Product > /a > the same area, that is, the imported cars and off-road vehicles with a volume of more than 2.5 litres originating in the United States. The products are classified in the tariff code of import and export tariff of the People's Republic of China: 87032361, 87032362, 87032369, 87032411, 87032412, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032429, 87032429, 87032429, 87032429, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 87032419, 87032421, 87032422, 87032429, 0, 0, 0, 2,

< p > the investigation agency investigated the Nissan North America Inc's new exporters' qualifications, dumping and dumping margin, subsidies and subsidies.

According to the results of the investigation, and according to the relevant provisions of the anti-dumping regulations and countervailing regulations, the ruling is as follows: < /p >

< p > strong > 1, original anti-dumping and countervailing measures < /strong > /p >

< p > survey machine issued the Announcement No. eighty-fourth in December 14, 2011, decided to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duty on imported cars and off-road vehicles originating in the United States with an exhaust volume of more than 2.5 liters. The implementation period is 2 years.

< /p >

< p > < strong > two, investigation procedure < /strong > < /p >.

< p > (1) application for review.

< /p >

< p > September 3, 2012, Nissan North America Inc submitted new applications for re examination to the investigation authorities.

The applicant claims that, during the investigation of the original case, no product was exported to China, and it was not related to the other manufacturers of the products being investigated in the original case. After the measures were taken in the original case, there was a real export to the mainland of China, which accords with the requirements of the new exporter.

< /p >

< p > (two) filing.

< /p >

< p > 1. notice before filing.

< /p >

< p > September 6, 2012 and October 15th, the investigation bodies notified the original applicant and Embassy of the United States respectively of the application filed by Nissan North America Inc.

The applicant has no objection to the investigation of the case.

Within the specified time period, Embassy of the United States did not submit comments.

< /p >

< p > 2. filing notice.

< /p >

< p > the investigation agency examined the application and believed that Nissan's application provided preliminary evidence for the qualification of the new exporter.

According to the forty-seventh provision of the anti dumping regulations and the forty-second provision of the anti subsidy Ordinance, in October 18, 2012, the investigation organ issued a notice of placing the case on file, and decided to conduct a new exporter's investigation on the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to the imported products originating in the Nissan North America Inc.

The dumping investigation period is from March 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and the subsidy investigation period is from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012.

< /p >

< p > 3. filing notice.

< /p >

< p > according to the relevant provisions of the anti dumping regulations and the countervailing regulations, the investigating organs notify the enterprises involved, the original cases and Embassy of the United States.

In addition, the investigation authorities will publish the announcement on the website of the Ministry of Commerce and send the public version of the application to the open information reference room of the Ministry of Commerce.

Within the stipulated time, the interested parties did not comment on the registration.

< /p >

< p > (three) dumping and dumping margin survey.

< /p >

< p > 1..

< /p >

< p > October 22, 2012, the investigation agency issued a dumping investigation questionnaire to the Nissan North America Inc, and requested it to submit an accurate and complete < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/" > /a > within 37 days according to the regulations.

During that period, the company applied to the investigation authorities for an extension of the written answer and to give relevant reasons.

After examination, the investigation organ agreed to grant appropriate extension to the application enterprise.

On the date of submission of the answer, the investigation authorities received the answers to the questionnaires on dumping part submitted by Nissan North America Inc and its affiliates.

< /p >

< p > 2. supplementary questionnaire.

< /p >

< p > during the subsequent investigation, the investigation agency issued a supplementary questionnaire to the relevant responding companies for the problems in the original anti-dumping examination papers submitted by Nissan and its affiliates, and received supplementary answers within the prescribed time.

< /p >

< p > 3. field verification.

< /p >

< p > in order to further verify the authenticity, completeness and accuracy of the materials submitted by the companies involved, the investigators conducted a field verification of Nissan (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Daily) and Nissan North America Inc in April 17, 2013 and from May 5th to 10th.

After checking and sorting out the materials and information collected in the field verification, the investigation authorities disclosed and explained the facts found in the field verification according to the provisional rules for the disclosure of information on anti-dumping investigations and the provisional rules for on-site verification of anti-dumping investigations.

The investigation authorities shall consider the materials and information collected in the field inspection in accordance with the law.

< /p >

< p > 4. before the ruling, information disclosure < /p >

Prior to the verdict of the case P, the investigation organ disclosed and explained the basic facts on the basis of the relevant provisions of the anti-dumping regulations to the involved companies and Embassy of the United States, and gave the opportunity for the interested parties to make comments.

During the prescribed time, the investigation organ received comments on the information disclosure by the interested parties.

In the ruling, the investigation organs consider the opinions and comments in accordance with the law.

< /p >

< p > 5. on information disclosure.

< /p >

< p > all the public information of the case has been sent to the Ministry of Commerce's open information reference room for the interested parties to find, read, copy and copy in the open information reference room.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > (four) survey of subsidy and subsidy amount < /p >

< p > 1..

< /p >

< p > November 5, 2012, the investigation agency issued the government questionnaire on the countervailing investigation to the US government, issued a questionnaire to the North American Nissan company, and requested it to submit an accurate and complete answer within 37 days according to the regulations.

Within the specified time period, the US government and Nissan submitted their answers.

< /p >

< p > 2. supplementary questionnaire.

< /p >

< p > during the subsequent investigation, the investigation agency issued a supplementary questionnaire to the US government and Nissan in response to the problems in the government's answer papers and enterprise answers, and received supplementary answers within the prescribed time.

< /p >

< p > 3. field verification.

< /p >

< p > in order to further verify the authenticity, completeness and accuracy of the materials submitted by the US government and the companies involved, the investigation machine has conducted field checks on the Nissan North America Inc and the US government in from May 5 to 10, 2013.

After checking and sorting out the materials and information collected in the field verification, the investigation authorities disclosed and explained the factual results found in the field verification according to the provisional rules for on-site verification of countervailing investigations.

The materials and information collected in the field < a href= '> http://www.91se91.com/ > /a > are considered by the investigation organ in the final ruling.

< /p >

Information disclosure before < p > 4. > /p >

Before the decision of the case of < p >, the investigation organ, according to the relevant provisions of the anti subsidy regulations, disclosed and explained the basic facts on the basis of the calculation of the subsidy and the amount of subsidies to the company and the Embassy of the United States involved in the case, and the opportunity to give comments to the interested parties.

During the prescribed time, the investigation organ received comments on the information disclosure by the interested parties.

In the ruling, the investigation organs consider the opinions and comments in accordance with the law.

< /p >

< p > 5. on information disclosure.

< /p >

< p > all the public information of the case has been sent to the Ministry of Commerce's open information reference room for the interested parties to find, read, extract and photocopy in the public information reference room.

< /p >

< p > < strong > three, and the survey results < /strong > < /p >.

< p > (1) export qualification.

< /p >

< p > the investigation institution has found that Nissan North America Inc has the qualification of a new legal exporter.

< /p >

< p > (two) dumping and dumping margin.

< /p >

< p > 1. normal value.

< /p >

< p > the company answered that it produced 10 types of products and similar products exported to China, one of the Infiniti models.

After investigation, the investigation authorities accepted the company's opinion on the similarity and classification of similar products and the products under investigation, and decided to use this model as the basis for determining the normal value and export price.

< /p >

< p > the company sells the same products of the same type of products to non related dealers in domestic sales.

The survey authorities found that the number of similar products sold in China during the survey period accounted for more than 5% of the number of products exported to China in the same period, which accorded with the quantity requirement as a basis for determining the normal value basis.

< /p >

< p > the investigation agency examined the company's production costs and sales, management and financial expenses.

The company does not share the financial cost in the 6-5 table. The company considers that it does not share the financial cost according to the model in practice.

According to the investigation agency, the financial cost is the actual occurrence of the company. Therefore, the investigation authority apportioned the financial expenses to the similar products of the investigated products according to the proportion of the net sales income of the products of the investigated products, which accounted for the net sales of the company's total sales.

The investigation authorities accept the other costs and expenses.

After examination, the investigation authorities found that the domestic sales of the company were higher than the cost sales during the survey period. According to the fourth provision of the anti-dumping regulations, all the domestic sales pactions were regarded as the basis for determining the normal value.

< /p >

< p > 2. export price.

< /p >

< p > the investigation agency examined the situation of the company being exported to China during the survey period.

During the survey period, the company was resale to non related dealers through the affiliated company in China (Nissan).

According to the provisions of the fifth provision of the anti dumping regulations, the investigation authorities presumed the export price based on the resale price of Nissan.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > 3. adjustment items.

< /p >

< p > according to the sixth provision of the anti dumping regulations, the adjustment items of the investigation organs affecting the price comparability of the company are examined one by one for a fair and reasonable comparison.

< /p >

< p > (1) normal value part.

< /p >

< p > on the adjustment of quality assurance costs.

The company advocates adjusting the warranty cost in the original answer sheet, but it only provides the cost allocation form, and does not provide the relevant evidence that the cost actually occurs.

The survey authorities sent supplementary questionnaires to the company to provide relevant evidence.

The company submitted the quality assurance cost calculation form and the SAP record sample in the supplementary answer, and provided the proof sample of the warranty cost.

The investigation authorities found that the certificate of payment submitted by the company did not show that the cost was incurred due to the sale of Infiniti models. The evidence submitted by the company was insufficient and could not be proved to have occurred and paid the warranty cost when it was sold at home.

Therefore, the investigation authorities decided not to accept the company's claims.

In addition, in the field inspection, the company said that the fees were charged in the domestic sales and export to China, the same as the standard, but the company's export sales to China did not advocate the cost adjustment.

According to the company's reply, since the quality of the same standard is being raised in the domestic sales and export to China, the investigation agency does not adjust the warranty cost in the domestic sales and export sales, and does not affect the fair comparison of the price.

< /p >

< p > on the adjustment of domestic pportation and other logistics costs.

The field investigation found that the invoice price quoted in the 4-2 table of the company does not include domestic pportation and other logistics costs, and does not need to adjust the cost. The adjustment of the company's domestic freight and other logistics costs is inconsistent with the facts.

Therefore, the investigation organ decided not to accept the company's claim and not adjust the cost.

< /p >

< p > regarding the other adjustment items of domestic sales reported by the company, the investigation authorities take the data and materials submitted by them and accept their adjustment opinions.

< /p >

< p > (2) export price.

< /p >

< p > on the adjustment of credit fees.

Nissan in the 4-2 table advocated the use of US dollar three month LIBOR interest rate as a short-term interest rate for calculating credit charges.

According to the request of the survey organ to supplement the questionnaire, the company submitted the actual short-term loan interest rate.

Therefore, the investigation authorities decided to use the short-term loan interest rate actually calculated by the company as the basis for calculating the credit charges.

China's Nissan made a partial advance payment in the 3-5 table, claiming that the credit cost was negative. The investigation authorities considered that the credit cost was the opportunity cost of the delayed receipts and could not be negative. Therefore, the investigation authority adjusted the negative value to zero.

< /p >

< p > on the adjustment of China's Nissan indirect costs.

Nissan did not adjust its indirect costs in the 3 - 5 table.

According to the investigation agency, the export price should be adjusted on the basis of the price of the first resale of the imported product to the purchaser, and the expenses arising from import and resale should be adjusted.

Therefore, when estimating the export price, the investigation authority calculated the proportion of the indirect cost of the company's sales revenue according to the data in the 6-5 form submitted by China Daily production company, and supplemented the indirect cost according to the ratio.

< /p >

< p > on the adjustment of Nissan's sales profit in China.

Nissan, China, advocates adjusting sales profits according to the profit margin generated by selling all the products in the company's financial statements.

Investigation agencies found: first, China's Nissan original answer and supplementary answer submitted profit margins before and after inconsistent; second, Nissan and Nissan reported in the original answer, the sale price between the two companies must have a related nature, but the company did not report on the principles and methods of internal price and profit pfer.

The survey authorities issued supplementary questionnaires, requiring the company to provide the company with no definite answer.

According to the twenty-first article of the anti dumping regulations and considering the fact that there is a close relationship between the two companies, the investigation organ does not accept the proposal that the company should make profit adjustments on the profit margin generated by all its products.

According to the manufacturing cost of the investigated products, the sales price of the products sold by China Nissan, the cost of Nissan's export to China, the cost of the Nissan purchase and the cost of the Nissan's resale, the total profit of the company's sales was calculated, and the total profit of the Nissan and China Nissan sold at the time of sale were determined to determine the profits realized by the products sold by China Nissan, and adjusted accordingly.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > before the ruling, the company held that the investigation agency should not deduct the indirect cost, otherwise, the export price and the domestic selling price would not be in the same trade link.

In addition, the survey authorities should use the profit margin of all products sold by Nissan in China.

The investigation authorities do not accept the company's claim.

The reasons are as follows: first, because the export price of the company is not reliable, the investigation agency presumed the export price based on the price of the first resale of the investigated product to the non related customers, the purpose of adjusting the expenses and profits in the resale process was to determine reasonable export prices; secondly, the indirect expenses in the resale were related to the products under investigation, and the adjustment was in line with the provisions of the fifth and sixth provisions of the anti dumping regulations; thirdly, for a fair comparison, the investigation authorities adjusted export prices to the factory level, that is, the output level of North America and Japan.

When determining the normal value, the investigation authorities also considered the factors that affect the price comparability and adjusted to the Nissan factory level in North America. There was no need to adjust the indirect cost of Nissan in the normal value section. Fourth, regarding the trade level, the investigation agency adjusted the export price and the normal value to the factory level. The comparison was carried out on the same trade level.

The investigation authorities noted that the company did not provide evidence support in the comments, that is, there were different trade links and how the fair comparison of prices was affected.

In particular, because the company did not submit Nissan and Nissan's internal sales distribution principles and agreements, the investigation authorities could not review its trade links.

In addition, the company confirmed that in the field verification, the price of China's export sales was referred to the domestic sales price, and there was no difference in price due to different trade links.

Fifthly, about profit adjustment.

According to the investigation agency, the profit margin of all products sold by the company is not the profit margin usually achieved by the sale of the products under investigation.

As the company did not submit relevant materials as required, according to the twenty-first provision of the anti dumping Ordinance, the investigation authorities determined the profits realized by China's Nissan sales according to the data and materials submitted by the company, and adjusted accordingly.

< /p >

< p > for the NGP and Nissan's other adjustment projects, the investigation authorities have accepted the data and materials submitted by the investigation company and accepted the company's claim.

< /p >

< p > (3) on CIF (CISS price).

< /p >

< p > the investigation agency takes the export sales declaration price (CISS) actually reported by the company as its actual CIF data.

< /p >

< p > (4) price comparison.

< /p >

< p > according to the sixth provision of the anti dumping regulation, the investigation organ compares the export price and the normal value of the surveyed products on the basis of factory level, and considers various comparability factors that affect the price.

< /p >

< p > (5) dumping margin.

< /p >

< p > after investigation, the dumping margin of Nissan North America Inc was 3.6%.

< /p >

< p > (three) amount of subsidy and park.

< /p >

< p > the investigation organ took 10 years as an investigation and apportionment period for the one-time subsidy benefits of the automobile industry, namely, the investigation of financial support and any form of income or price support that may bring benefits to the enterprises during the period of subsidy investigation and in the preceding 9 years.

Nissan submitted its subsidy answer on behalf of itself and its affiliates.

In the survey, the investigation authorities assessed the benefits of subsidized projects on the basis of the product scope of subsidized benefits.

< /p >

< p > the investigation bodies examined the answers of the US government and Nissan, and the following items were identified as follows: < /p >

< p > 1. advanced technology vehicle loan project (ATVM loan project).

< /p >

< p > the original applicant claimed that the 136th part of the US energy independence and security act of 2007 set up Advanced Technology Vehicles ManuSSacturing Loan Program, namely ATVM loan project.

The project is made up of grants and direct loans to support the upgrading of the car and its components in the United States by the US Department of energy.

The applicant believes that the US government loan project constitutes a subsidy under the third provision of the anti subsidy Ordinance and benefits the US automobile manufacturers.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > this project has not been identified in the original investigation, and the investigation organ has reviewed the case in this case.

< /p >

< p > (1) confirmation of financial support.

< /p >

< p > according to the US government answer book, the 136th section of the energy independence and Safety Act (EISA) in December 2007 set up an advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan scheme.

According to the plan, the US government can extend loans to US auto and parts manufacturers to help them refit, expand or set up production facilities for advanced technology vehicles or qualified parts in the United States and the integration costs of related projects.

In 2010, the 312nd section of the energy and water resources development and related institutions budget law amended the 136th section of the energy independence and Safety Act, adding super efficient vehicles to advanced technology vehicles.

At the beginning of the project, the amount of the fund was $25 billion, and another $7 billion 500 million was allocated to cover the cost of the loan. L million US dollars for project administrative expenses.

As of August 31, 2012, the loan amount of the project was $16 billion 600 million, and another $4 billion 200 million was allocated to cover the cost of the loan.

The US Department of energy is responsible for managing the project.

In the North American company's response report, the company used the loan project during the subsidy survey period and the subsidy benefit allocation period.

< /p >

< p > according to the provisions of the third provision of the countervailing regulations, the governments of the exporting countries (regions) directly provide funds in the form of appropriation, loans and capital injection to form financial support.

According to the investigation agency, the US Department of energy's loans under this project conform to the above provisions and constitute financial support.

< /p >

< p > (2) identification of specificity.

< /p >

According to the US government's answer sheet, the energy independence and safety act of the United States clearly stipulates that the purpose of the project is to support qualified applicants in the United States to acquire new equipment, expand or build manufacturing facilities to produce engineering conformity with advanced technologies, such as automobiles, parts or projects, which meet the quality requirements. P

In field inspections, the US government confirmed that the project was limited to the automotive industry, that is, applicants must be auto manufacturers or qualified parts manufacturers.

Nissan's answer report is that the applicant must be a manufacturer or a qualified component manufacturer that meets the specific fuel economy requirements.

< /p >

< p > in addition, according to the US government's reply, at the end of the investigation period, only five automobile companies, Nissan, Ford motor, fester motor, Tesla Motor Company and automobile production group, were granted eligible loan qualification.

The above evidence shows that the actual beneficiaries of the project are limited to specific enterprises in the automotive industry.

< /p >

Above all, according to the provisions of the fourth provision of the countervailing regulations, the subsidies granted by certain enterprises and industries specified by laws and regulations of the exporting countries (regions) are specific to P.

According to the investigation agency, the project meets the above requirements and is specific.

< /p >

< p > (3) the determination of subsidy benefits.

< /p >

According to the US government's reply, in January 18, 2010, Nissan applied for the project loan to the US Department of energy and applied for a total amount of US $1 billion 447 million 500 thousand. P

By the end of the survey, the company said the company received some loans.

The company claims that the loan is mainly used to produce a new type of vehicle and has nothing to do with the product under investigation.

The survey authorities believe that if the relevant loans do exist, all products of Nissan North America Inc will benefit from it, and the products will also benefit from it. The reasons are as follows: < /p >

< p > first, from the perspective of loan acquisition.

According to the US government's answer sheet, the US Department of energy needs to weigh the borrower's overall technical, financial, environmental and legal aspects when examining the borrower's qualification.

In the Nissan North America Inc response report, when submitting the application documents, it is necessary to explain the overall financial situation and operating conditions of the company.

It can be seen that the overall operation of all products, including production, sales and so on, is one of the necessary conditions for the government to obtain loans from the company.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > secondly, from the perspective of the overall impact of loans on enterprises.

Any loan granted by an enterprise has a specific purpose, but from the enterprise as a whole, the loan of different uses is the same.

They are all loan needs of enterprises when they plan to invest a certain amount of money.

To obtain loans, cash flow enterprises, enterprises can use the cash increase, repayment of loans lead to cash outflow enterprises, enterprises can use less cash, that is, loans and repayment itself, no matter what the purpose of the loan is, the impact is the overall cash flow of enterprises.

Nissan North America Inc reported that during the period of applying for loans and obtaining loans, the company also raised funds for other projects, including projects related to the products under investigation and similar products.

In the field verification, the company also confirmed that if there was no loan from the US government, the project would continue, but other projects and the cash flow of the company would be affected.

It can be seen from the angle of Nissan North America Inc's unified cash management that loans for specific purposes will have an impact on all products of the company.

In the field verification of the US government, the US government said the company's external audit report could reflect the direction of the loan's use.

The inspectors asked the US government to make clear that the US government did not make a clear answer.

In addition, the US government has made no definite response to the problem that loans will objectively benefit other products.

< /p >

< p > again, from the perspective of loan usage and enterprise production process, other products including the investigated products will benefit objectively from the use of loans.

According to the Nissan North America Inc report and field verification, some of the items used for loans can be used for the production of other products including the investigated products and their similar products.

In addition, there are some production factors and production processes in the production and assembly of loans for production and other products in the same factory workshop.

< /p >

In summary, the survey authorities believe that although the company claims that the loan has a specific purpose, the above facts show that other products including the investigated products produced by the company are also benefited objectively. P

In the decision of the US government, the United States government held that the first is that the Department of energy of the United States Department has set up a special department to supervise the Nissan's compliance with the relevant loan agreements and formulate specific technical supervision plans.

Secondly, the products supported by the ATVM project have nothing to do with the products under investigation.

According to the investigation agency, first, the US government did not submit specific technical supervision plans in the original answer, supplementary answer and on-site verification.

Second, the US government did not submit evidence to support its claim that it did not objectively lead to any other products including products being investigated.

Therefore, the investigation agencies do not accept comments from the US government.

< /p >

< p > according to the provisions of the sixth provision of the countervailing regulations, the subsidy amount provided in the form of loans shall be calculated according to the interest payable by the enterprise that receives the loan under the normal commercial loan condition and the interest difference of the loan.

The US government replied that the loan interest rate of the project was much lower than that of the normal commercial loan interest rate, but the US government did not submit the reference interest rate of the normal commercial loan according to the requirements, nor submitted the method and basis for determining the loan interest rate.

The company's answer sheet reported that Nissan North America Inc had no actual normal commercial long term loan interest rate.

According to the company's answer sheet, the Nissan North America Inc found that in 2011 and 2012, the survey found that the company had regular weighted average interest rates on loans.

The company explained that the interest rate was the interest rate of Nissan related subsidiaries in North America.

The survey authorities believe that the US government and companies failed to submit the normal long term commercial lending reference rate.

The survey authorities decided that the weighted average interest rate of the company's financial statements should be used as the comparable lending rate under normal business conditions.

The survey authorities calculated the amount of subsidy granted by the investigation company and assessed the total sales volume according to the survey period reported by the company. On this basis, the investigation authority ruled that the amount of subsidy granted by Nissan fork in the project accounted for 0.01% of the total sales.

< /p >

< p > 2, Mississippi jobs credits (Mississippi).

< /p >

< p > the company answers the report from the US government to apply for the Mississippi employment tax credit project, the investigation organ carries on the reexamination investigation to this item.

< /p >

< p > (1) confirmation of financial support.

< /p >

< p > according to the US government's answer sheet, the company operating in Mississippi should apply the Mississippi corporate income tax law.

Mississippi has issued a series of tax credits for employment opportunities. Enterprises can obtain the corresponding income tax credit based on the number of job opportunities created.

The Mississippi employment tax credit granted by Nissan North America Inc is designed to encourage businesses to create at least 3000 jobs for Mississippi, with at least $750 million in capital investment.

The company can deduct the amount of the tax credit from the enterprise income tax payable.

The credit amount is $five thousand per job per year.

The tax bureau of Mississippi is in charge of the project.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > according to the provisions of the third provision of the countervailing regulations, the government of the exporting country (region) abandons or does not collect receivable income, which constitutes financial assistance.

According to the investigation agency, the project complies with the above provisions and constitutes financial support.

< /p >

< p > (2) identification of specificity.

< /p >

< p > according to the US government's answer sheet, to apply for the project tax credit, it is necessary to meet the requirements stipulated in the main economic impact law of the state, that is, enterprises must invest in specific capital, and the number of job opportunities created should meet the minimum requirements.

The US government replied that for a company like Nissan North America Inc, it should invest at least $750 million in capital investment and create at least 3000 full-time job opportunities, and the annual average job opportunities must be at least 3000.

The US government's legal documents clearly indicate that the preferential tax program is limited to a certain amount of investment and a certain number of enterprises that create employment.

< /p >

< p > the US government replied that about 50 taxpayers had applied for the tax credit during the survey period. In the previous year, no more than 100 taxpayers had obtained the tax credit.

The above evidence shows that the actual beneficiaries of the project are limited to only a small number of enterprises.

In order to further examine the specific implementation of the project, the investigation agency asked the US government to provide a list of the number of companies that benefit from the project and the total amount of benefits obtained from the project in accordance with the industry distribution according to the survey period and the first three years.

The investigation agency also requested the US government to submit Nissan North America Inc application documents, government approval documents, etc.

The US government did not provide such information.

The investigation agency is unable to review the specific implementation of the project.

< /p >

< p > according to the above facts, the investigation agency finds that the subsidy of the project is specific.

< /p >

< p > the United States government held that the Ministry of commerce did not fully explain its specific conclusions.

According to the investigation agency, first, the US government's legal documents clearly indicate that the preferential tax program is limited to a certain amount of investment and a certain number of enterprises that create employment.

Second, the actual beneficiaries of the project are limited to only a small number of enterprises.

Third, in order to further examine whether the project is disproportionately obtained by some enterprises in the specific implementation process, or some enterprises are the main users of the project.

The investigation agency asked the US government to provide relevant materials, and the US government failed to provide relevant materials according to its domestic information confidentiality laws, and the investigation authorities could not review the specific implementation of the project.

Therefore, in the light of the above facts and according to the twenty-first provision of the countervailing regulations, the investigation organ finds that the subsidy of the project is specific.

< /p >

< p > (3) the determination of subsidy benefits.

< /p >

< p > the company's answer report, the company actually used the tax credit in fiscal year 2011, and is expected to use it in the 2012 fiscal year.

The investigation authorities calculated the amount of subsidy granted by the company during the investigation period and assessed the total sales volume according to the company's investigation period.

According to the investigation agency, the proportion of subsidy granted by Nissan North America Inc under the project accounted for 0.0077% of total sales.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > 3. Tennessee Industry Machinery credit.

< /p >

< p > the company answers the report from the US government to apply for the Tennessee industrial machinery tax credit project, the investigation organ carries on the reexamination investigation to this item.

< /p >

< p > (1) confirmation of financial support.

< /p >

< p > according to the US government's reply, the sixty-seventh chapter of the Tennessee code sets up a graded tax credit policy based on the amount of capital invested by commercial enterprises in Tennessee.

The taxpayer must provide the Commissioner of inland revenue with a business plan to obtain the corresponding tax credit qualification.

If the necessary capital investment of a taxpayer exceeds $one billion during the investment period, the amount of tax credit obtained is equivalent to ten percent of the purchase price of industrial machinery purchased in Tennessee during the period of capital investment.

If the necessary capital investment of the taxpayer exceeds US $five hundred million, the amount of tax credit obtained is equal to seven percent of the above purchase price.

If the necessary capital investment of the taxpayer exceeds US $250000000, the amount of tax credit obtained is equal to five percent of the above purchase price.

If the necessary capital investment of the taxpayer exceeds US $one hundred million, the amount of tax credit obtained is equal to three percent of the above purchase price.

If the taxpayer's capital investment amount is less than $one hundred million, the amount of tax credit obtained is equal to one percent of the above purchase price.

The tax credit and its carrying amount shall not exceed fifty percent of the total amount of the franchise tax and the franchise tax, and the period of rotation shall not exceed fifteen years.

If the purchased industrial machinery is removed from Tennessee during the use period, or sold or otherwise disposed of, the Tennessee tax bureau can recover the corresponding portion of the tax credit granted.

If the lease period of the industrial machinery is less than eighty percent of its life expectancy, the tax credit should be multiplied by the purchase price by the percentage of the duration of the lease.

In addition, taxpayers who have set up international, domestic or regional headquarters in Tennessee, or taxpayers who have set up international, domestic or regional warehouses or distribution centers in Tennessee can be credited with the total amount of their exclusive and franchise tax.

The amount of tax credit exceeding the permitted amount is determined by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Secretary for economic and social development in accordance with the principles most conducive to Tennessee.

The Tennessee State Administration of taxation is responsible for managing the project.

< /p >

< p > according to the provisions of the third provision of the countervailing regulations, the government of the exporting country (region) abandons or does not collect receivable income, which constitutes financial assistance.

According to the investigation agency, the project complies with the above provisions and constitutes financial support.

< /p >

< p > (2) identification of specificity.

< /p >

< p > the company claims that the credit is granted on the basis of objective criteria. The application is automatic and should not be considered as a taxable subsidy.

The investigation authorities refused to accept the company's claim for the following reasons: < /p >

< p > first, when the company applies for the total amount of exclusive tax and franchise tax, the US government needs to review the company's application and examine the decision by the Tennessee economic and Community Development Committee and the head of the Inland Revenue Department in accordance with the principle of economic interests.

The US government says it will generally consider the driving role of economic development when reviewing.

It can be seen that the granting authority has the discretion to grant the right.

The company's claim is inconsistent with the facts.

< /p >

< p > secondly, the United States government provided a tax credit table based on the classified catalogue of its domestic enterprises during the verification.

The survey authorities found that the tax relief granted by the manufacturing industry accounted for 83.5% of the total tax relief. The current evidence shows that manufacturing is the main user of the credit.

< /p >

< p > again, the US government replied that the tax credit and investment amount were linked mainly to attract enterprises to invest in Tennessee, especially to encourage large investment projects. This shows that the main beneficiaries of the tax credit are to purchase manufacturing enterprises with large investment in qualified machinery and equipment.

In order to examine whether the project was disproportionately obtained by a large number of enterprises or whether some enterprises were the main users of the project in the specific implementation process, the investigation agency asked the United States to provide a list of the number of enterprises and the actual amount of tax relief granted from 2010 to 2012, and the US government did not provide such data and information.

< /p >

< p > according to the above facts, the investigation agency finds that the subsidy of the project is specific.

< /p >

< p > the United States government held that the Ministry of commerce did not fully explain its specific conclusions.

According to the investigation agency, the above evidence indicates that the main beneficiary of the project tax credit is to purchase manufacturing enterprises with large investment in qualified machinery and equipment.

Secondly, in order to further examine whether the project is disproportionately obtained by a number of enterprises in the specific implementation process, or some enterprises are the main users of the project.

The investigation agency asked the US government to provide relevant materials, and the US government failed to provide relevant materials according to its domestic information confidentiality laws, and the investigation authorities could not review the specific implementation of the project.

Therefore, based on the above facts and in accordance with the provisions of the twenty-first provision of the anti subsidy Ordinance, it is determined that the subsidy of the project is specific.

< /p >

< p > (3) the determination of subsidy benefits.

< /p >

< p > the company's answer report, the company actually used the tax credit in fiscal year 2011, and is expected to use it in the 2012 fiscal year.

The investigation authorities calculated the amount of subsidy granted by the company during the investigation period and assessed the total sales volume according to the company's investigation period.

According to the investigation agency, the proportion of subsidy granted by Nissan North America Inc under the project accounted for 0.019% of total sales.

< /p >

< p > 4. Nissan unused projects in North America.

< /p >

< p > Electric vehicle credits (electric vehicle tax credit) < /p >

< p > federal development tax credit (Research and development credits) < /p >

< p > above all, the proportion of Nissan North America Inc's subsidy amount to total sales amounts to o.03%. According to the ninth provision of the anti subsidy Ordinance, the amount of subsidy granted by Nissan North America Inc is less than 1% of the value of the product.

The investigation agency confirmed that Nissan North America Inc received minor subsidies during the survey period.

{page_break} < /p >

< p > < strong > four, retrial ruling < /strong > < /p >.

< p > according to the survey results, the investigation agency ruled that the dumping rate of Nissan North America Inc was 3.6% during the reexamination period, and that the product imported from the company was subsidized slightly during the period of subsidy investigation.

< /p >