Chapter 11 Chronology of China's Encountering Anti-dumping

According to statistics, as of June 2005, foreign countries initiated 804 trade remedy cases against China, including 713 anti-dumping cases, 3 countervailing cases, 45 safeguard measures cases, and 43 special safeguard measures cases.Among the 713 anti-dumping cases initiated against China, the top 10 originating countries (regions) are: the United States, the European Union, India, Australia, Mexico, Turkey, South Africa, Argentina, Canada, and Brazil. The increase of anti-dumping cases, on the one hand, shows that China's export trade has gradually strengthened and has attracted the attention of the world; Economic losses.The reason is that our enterprises do not have a detailed and clear understanding of the international anti-dumping system.We hope that through our review of the major events of international anti-dumping cases against China, we can bring some inspiration to Chinese enterprises, so that they can avoid and prevent possible anti-dumping complaints while expanding exports.

1979 Australia conducted an anti-dumping investigation on glucose monohydrate originating in China; on September 24, 1979, Australia made a ruling on the case. Sodium saccharin produced in my country was dumped by the European Community at that time. in 1980 The U.S. Department of Commerce decided to initiate an anti-dumping investigation on menthol from China, which became the first U.S. anti-dumping case against China 1982 On October 18, 1982, the US Four "H" Company applied to the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission for an anti-dumping investigation on canned mushrooms originating in China. On October 5, 1983, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a final ruling that there was no dumping by the Chinese companies involved. On October 6, 1983, the US International Trade Commission issued a notice to terminate the investigation.

1983 On February 22, 1983, American Carus Chemical Company filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, accusing potassium permanganate originating in China of dumping in the U.S. market. On March 18, 1983, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched an anti-dumping investigation on potassium permanganate originating in China. On December 29, 1983, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a final ruling and imposed an anti-dumping duty of 39.63% on all Chinese companies involved in the case. 1986 On March 18, 1986, at the application of the European Chemical Industry Committee, the European Union launched an anti-dumping investigation on potassium permanganate originating in China. On December 2, 1986, the European Union made a final ruling: reached a price commitment with Sinopec, and imposed an anti-dumping duty of 28% on other companies except Sinopec if the CIF price before customs clearance was lower than 2.3 ECU/kg .

year 1987 In June 1987, the European Union conducted a safeguard investigation on Tangshui pears originating in China; on November 26, 1987, the European Union made a ruling on the case.This is the first case of safeguard measures that China has encountered internationally. 1988 On May 26, 1988, the American Hat Association filed a lawsuit, claiming that Chinese companies exported sewn hats to the United States at a price lower than the fair value, which caused damage to the American hat manufacturing industry.Throughout the case, my respondent company performed well, argued with arguments, appeared in court to defend, actively cooperated with lawyers to provide materials, and actively cooperated with the domestic on-the-spot investigation of the US Department of Commerce.After a year of anti-dumping trials and defenses, the US Department of Commerce finally accepted our request, conducted separate investigations on responding companies for the first time, and ruled on dumping margins for eight export companies.In the end, the International Trade Commission concluded that the export of Chinese hats to the United States did not pose substantial damage or threat of substantial damage to the domestic hat industry, and concluded the case with our victory.

This case is China's first request to the United States to hear and adjudicate my country's anti-dumping cases according to the treatment of a market economy country. In 1988, the European Community launched an anti-dumping investigation on China's 14-inch small-screen color TV.At that time, many Hong Kong companies participated in the response, and were finally levied an anti-dumping duty of 2.1% to 4.6%.Chinese companies are subject to anti-dumping duties ranging from 7.5% to 15.3%. year 1991 The European Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of non-refillable gas carbide lighters originating in Japan, China, South Korea and Thailand in accordance with European Council Ruling (EEC) No. 3433/91.Afterwards, the European Commission recommended twice in October 1998 and April 1999 to maintain the ruling on imposing anti-dumping duties.However, neither proposal was adopted by the European Council. On January 24, 2000, the relevant EU complainant brought the case to the European Court of Justice, and the EU Court ruled that the complainant lost the case.

Since 1991, the European Union has imposed a 15.3% anti-dumping duty on Chinese small-screen color TVs. 1992 The European Community filed an anti-dumping lawsuit against ST Zhonghua. After losing the lawsuit, ST Zhonghua was imposed a 30.6% anti-dumping tax, which caused its market in Europe to shrink sharply. vehicles, and eventually lost the European market. 1993 The European Community imposed anti-dumping duties on ferrosilicon originating in China. On July 12, 1993, the U.S. Department of Commerce began an anti-dumping investigation on silicon carbide produced in China.The applicant is the American Corundum Ad Hoc Alliance representing 3 silicon carbide producers in the United States.After the case was filed and investigated, the Chinese manufacturer actively cooperated with the American importer and hired experienced American lawyers to respond to the lawsuit. In April 1994, DOC announced the final result: Qinghai and Inner Mongolia companies were laid off at a low tax rate, allowing them to continue exporting even if anti-dumping duties were imposed, and they may become the only two companies in the country that can export silicon carbide to the United States. company. On May 26, 1994, the International Trade Commission made a final ruling of no damage.So far, the silicon carbide anti-dumping case ended in China's victory.

1994 After the United States imposed a high anti-dumping duty of 376.67% on Chinese garlic, Chinese garlic has since withdrawn from the US market. China's disposable lighter manufacturers encountered US anti-dumping, and only 3 of the 57 companies responded. As a result, the anti-dumping duties of 2 responding companies dropped to 0%, and 1 company dropped to 20%, while the remaining 54 companies did not respond. All of them lost their market due to the 197.85% anti-dumping duty. Mexico imposes anti-dumping duties as high as 331% on cotton yarn and cotton cloth originating in China, 537% on clothing, and 1105% on footwear.

On October 24, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce filed an anti-dumping investigation on honey imports from China based on the complaints filed by the American Beekeeping Association and U.S. honey producers.In June of the same year, the Ministry of Commerce reviewed the materials provided by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, the Chamber of Commerce and the relevant respondent, and the Chinese side agreed to limit the quantity and price of US honey exports.To this end, the two governments began drafting a suspension agreement on July 3 of the same year. This anti-dumping case is the first case in which the Chinese and US governments use the terms of the suspension agreement (SUSPENSION AGREEMENT) to deal with anti-dumping cases.

In October 1994, the European Union imposed a unified tax rate of 28.8% on all Chinese color TV export enterprises. On November 9, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an anti-dumping investigation on drawer guides originating in China; on October 24, 1995, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a final ruling, ruling that the anti-dumping tax rate for the products involved was 0-55.69%; On October 26, 1995, the complainant applied to withdraw the complaint. the year 1995 On April 1, 1995, the European Union imposed a final anti-dumping tax rate of 25.6% on all Chinese color TV companies.

1996 In April 1996, the United States Association of Manufacturers of Brake Drum and Brake Disc Parts Market filed an anti-dumping request, and the US Department of Commerce began an anti-dumping investigation on brake drums and brake discs imported from China. In early 1997, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a final ruling, ruling that the brake drums and discs imported from China were being sold or might be sold in the U.S. at a price lower than their fair value, so that the interests of the relevant U.S. industries were substantially damaged. An anti-dumping order was issued.At the same time, the U.S. Department of Commerce concluded that the de facto independence of the accused exporters had been successfully confirmed, and granted different degrees of anti-dumping duty rates to each exporter.

On October 17, 1996, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched an anti-dumping investigation on freshwater crayfish tail meat originating in China. On August 1, 1997, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a final ruling: the anti-dumping tax rate of Huaiyin Foreign Trade Company was 91.50%; that of Yancheng Foreign Trade Company was 108.05%; that of Binzhou Import and Export Company was 119.39%; The company, Nantong Delu Aquatic Products Company and Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Products Company are all 122.92%.China Everbright Trading Company is 156.77%; the general tax rate is 201.63%. On November 5, 1996, the U.S. steel giant Geneva Steel Corporation and the Gulf State Steel Corporation filed an anti-dumping application to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission, claiming that cut-to-length carbon steel plates from Ukraine, Russia, China, and South Africa were being dumped in the United States. Related industries in the United States have caused damage, requiring the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose high anti-dumping duties on steel plates exported to the U.S. from the above four countries, including anti-dumping duties ranging from 10.01% to 45.84% on China. On October 24, 1997, a suspension agreement beneficial to China was formally signed. On October 24, the U.S. Department of Commerce simultaneously announced the final tax rate and suspension agreement of the anti-dumping investigations on cut-to-length steel plates from Russia, Ukraine, China, and South Africa.The Chinese responding enterprises were ruled at high tax rates of 17.59% and 128.59%, and the other three countries were also ruled with dumping margins ranging from 26.01% to 237.91%. On December 2, the U.S. Trade Commission unanimously ruled that the export of medium and heavy steel plates to the U.S. by the four countries, including China, caused damage or threatened damage to related U.S. industries, and the suspension agreement came into effect. 1997 On February 4, 1997, the Chinese-made disposable lighters were sued by the Korea Lighter Association for dumping. On September 26, 1997, the final ruling on industrial damage was made, and anti-dumping duties were imposed on Chinese-made disposable lighters.Because the Chinese company did not respond to the lawsuit, it was imposed an anti-dumping tariff of 32.84% for 5 years. On April 4, 1997, South Korea’s Samsung Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. submitted an application to the Korean Trade Commission for imposing anti-dumping duties on furfuryl alcohol produced in China. On November 3, 1997, a hearing on industrial damage was held. Representatives of the enterprises sued participated in the hearing and stated China's position. The Korean Ministry of Finance and Economics extended the deadline for reviewing and deciding anti-dumping duties from January 16, 1998 to February 16, 1998, and after the deadline The Japanese applicant withdrew the application and suspended the anti-dumping investigation on furfuryl alcohol produced in China. In July 1997, the United States imposed anti-dumping duties on crayfish exported from China. The average anti-dumping duty rate was 122.92%, with a minimum of 91.5% and a maximum of 156.77%. On October 23, 1997, the Mexican Ministry of Commerce decided to impose 117% anti-dumping duties on furazolidone imported from China. 1998 On February 2, 1998, the U.S. Canned Mushroom Fair Trade Association applied to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission for anti-dumping investigations on canned mushrooms originating in China. On December 18, 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce made the final ruling. The anti-dumping duty of China Food Import and Export Corporation was 154.71%; Tak Fat Trading Company was 178.59%; Anti-dumping duty rates for Grain, Oil and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Fujian Grain and Oils Import and Export Corporation, Fujian Putian Canned Food Company, Xiamen Gulong Import and Export Corporation, Zhangzhou Canned Food Factory, Zhejiang Grain and Oils Import and Export Corporation, Shanghai Food Import and Export Corporation and Raoping Canned Food Co., Ltd. Both are 158.79%; the general tax rate is 198.63%. Since December 2, 1998, the European Union has imposed a high anti-dumping duty of 44.6% on China's color TV industry. Year 1999 In March 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce sued and began trial involving various common steel wire ropes from China, India and other countries.The prosecutor stated in the indictment that the highest dumping rate of the products involved in the lawsuit was 75%, and the amount involved by the Chinese company was more than 10 million US dollars.Chinese enterprises actively participated in responding to the lawsuit. On March 21, 2000, when the U.S. International Trade Commission voted on the anti-dumping case of Chinese steel wire ropes, it ruled that Chinese steel wire ropes did not cause substantial damage or threat of damage to similar industries in the United States with a vote of 6:0.Therefore, it is decided to terminate the investigation procedure of this case immediately, and not to take anti-dumping measures against the product involved in the lawsuit from China. At the same time, the additional import duty deposit paid by the US importer for importing Chinese steel wire ropes since the preliminary ruling will also be refunded.This means that Chinese enterprises have won a complete victory in responding to the case. On June 23, 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched an anti-dumping investigation on bulk aspirin originating in China. On February 10, 2003, the United States made a final ruling on the administrative review of aspirin exported from my country: it ruled that the two companies responding to the original trial did not export aspirin at the dumping price, that is, the dumping margin was zero, and other Chinese companies The dumping margin is 144.02%.The two companies are: Shandong Xinhua Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Jilin Henghe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. On July 30, 1999, major manufacturers in the EU electronic scale industry filed anti-dumping complaints against electronic scales imported from China, South Korea and Taiwan. On September 16, 1999, the European Commission decided to start an anti-dumping investigation.In this case, three Chinese enterprises responding to the lawsuit applied for individual case treatment, and all of them were approved.The final result of this case was that the products imported from the country involved in the case caused substantial damage to the EU industry, and it was decided to impose anti-dumping duties.Chinese companies have been given case-by-case treatment. On August 2, 1999, the U.S. paint brush industry filed an anti-dumping investigation application with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission.The application alleges that because the synthetic filament paintbrushes exported from China to the United States and the synthetic filament paintbrushes and animal bristle paintbrushes exported from Indonesia are sold at less than fair value in the U.S. market, the relevant U.S. industries have been substantially damaged or substantially damaged. Threat of sexual harm.On the same day, the US International Trade Commission filed a case to investigate the case. On August 27, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to open a case for investigation.After more than a month of investigation, the U.S. International Trade Commission made a preliminary decision: there is no reasonable evidence to prove that the U.S. paint brush industry has suffered substantial damage, or the threat of substantial damage, or that the establishment of related industries has been affected by the import of Chinese and Indonesian products. Substantial hindrance.The investigation is hereby terminated. In September 1999, the Indonesian Steel Pipe Manufacturers Association filed an anti-dumping lawsuit against imported steel pipes from China, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.The complainant believes that China is still a state-controlled economic system, and therefore uses the European Union as a surrogate country in the complaint to calculate the normal value.Using this calculation method, the dumping margin for Chinese exporters is determined to be 48.95%. On September 13, 1999, the Indonesian Anti-dumping Commission (KADI) officially started the investigation. On March 2, 2001, Chinese and South Korean companies were awarded the final zero tax rate. On October 30, 1999, India initiated an anti-dumping investigation on potassium permanganate originating in China at the request of India Universal Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. On September 8, 2001, India made a final ruling: to impose an anti-dumping duty of 8.1% to 121.06% on the Chinese companies involved in the case. 2001 Canada issued the final ruling on anti-dumping investigations on steel products from 13 countries, and China Baosteel was only taxed at 2.8%, the lowest among all responding companies. In November 2001, the American Monsanto Company and the local partner company Atanol jointly filed a complaint with the Argentine Foreign Trade Commission, accusing that Chinese glyphosate was sold in Argentina at a price lower than the normal value, causing damage to it. In April 2002, the Argentine government formally filed an anti-dumping investigation on glyphosate produced in China. In May 2003, the Argentine International Trade Commission presided over an industry damage hearing on this case. Representatives and attorneys of Zhenjiang Jiangnan Chemical Plant and local lawyers hired by Zhejiang Xin'an Chemical Group Co., Ltd. attended the meeting.Aiming at the focus of this case, that is, China's market economy status, my respondent company has actively defended. On February 4, 2004, the Argentine government made a final ruling on the case, announcing the termination of the investigation into China's glyphosate anti-dumping case and not imposing anti-dumping duties on Chinese-made glyphosate. year 2002 On February 13, 2002, the American Bearing Association filed an anti-dumping complaint with the US International Trade Commission against China's export of ball bearings to the United States. On April 9, 2003, the United States announced that the Chinese ball bearing dumping case was not established and the case was closed with "zero damage".This is the first time since China's accession to the WTO that the American Bearing Association has used "anti-dumping", a trade protection measure allowed by the WTO rules, to try to impose sanctions on Chinese products. In 2002, after negotiations, the EU accepted the price and quantity commitments of Chinese color TV manufacturers, and the products of seven color TV companies were allowed to enter the EU market and share the quota restrictions. Year 2003 On May 13, 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a notice to conduct an industrial damage investigation on color TVs (direct-view or rear-projection cathode ray tube color TV receivers with a screen ≥ 21 inches) originating in China; May 2003 On April 29, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched an anti-dumping investigation on color TVs originating in China; on April 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce made the final anti-dumping ruling on the case, and the dumping margin of the Chinese companies involved in the case was 4.35% to 78.45%. ; On May 14, 2004, the U.S. International Trade Commission made a final industrial damage ruling on the case; on May 14, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce revised the final ruling due to calculation errors in the estimated anti-dumping tax rate. On May 27, 2004, the US Department of Commerce issued an anti-dumping tax order on color TVs originating in China. On June 12, 2003, the US International Trade Commission voted to make a final ruling on the anti-dumping of saccharin products exported by my country, ruling that the US industry has been substantially damaged.The U.S. Department of Commerce announced the final results on May 20, 2003, ruling that the dumping margins of Chinese companies are: Suzhou Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. 291.57%; Shanghai Fuxing Chemical Co., Ltd. 249.39%; Kaifeng Fine Chemical Plant 281.97%; others Chinese enterprises 329.33%. On July 18, 2003, the Anti-dumping Bureau of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry launched an anti-dumping investigation on my country's chloroquine phosphate, and made a preliminary ruling on November 6, 2003, deciding to set a minimum price.Among them, the minimum price of chloroquine phosphate produced or exported by Chongqing Kangle Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Sinochem Jiangsu Import and Export Company is US$15.831/kg, and that of other companies is US$16.38/kg. On December 17, 2003, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to initiate an anti-dumping investigation on wooden bedroom furniture originating in China, involving more than 100 companies and involving a total amount of US$957.9 million. On November 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a final announcement, making a final anti-dumping ruling on wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. The dumping margin of the Chinese companies involved in the case ranged from 0.79% to 198.08%. On December 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce revised the final anti-dumping result of the case, including the revision of the dumping margin of some Chinese responding companies and the revision of the individual tax rate results. year 2004 On January 20, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an anti-dumping investigation on frozen and canned warm-water shrimp originating in China; Among the 4 sampled enterprises among the 1 Chinese enterprises responding to the lawsuit, except for Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Development Co., Ltd., the other 3 enterprises sold the involved products in the United States at a price lower than the normal value, with a dumping margin of 27.9% to 112.8%. On January 6, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission made a final ruling on industrial damage to frozen and canned warm-water shrimp originating in China.The six members of the US International Trade Commission unanimously determined that the frozen warm water shrimp has caused damage to the domestic industry in the United States. Therefore, the US International Trade Commission has made an affirmative industrial damage ruling on the frozen warm water shrimp originating in China.The US Department of Commerce issued an anti-dumping tax order in mid-January 2005.This is the most unfair anti-dumping case against Chinese agricultural products by the United States. On March 18, 2004, the Office of the United States Trade Representative filed a lawsuit against the WTO regarding China's semiconductor integrated circuit value-added tax export tax rebate system.The U.S. believes that China’s trade policy of giving tax rebates to foreign manufacturers that conduct research and development of semiconductor integrated circuits in China has caused U.S. semiconductor integrated circuit exporters to pay five times the tax of Chinese local companies, thus making domestic semiconductor integrated circuit developers and domestic semiconductor integrated circuit companies more expensive. Manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage. On April 27, 2004, China and the United States held consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and the EU, Japan, and Mexico joined the consultations as third parties; on July 2, 2004, the two sides reached a consensus on the main contents of the memorandum of understanding; in 2004 On July 8, the Office of the United States Trade Representative announced that the trade dispute between the United States and China, which had been submitted to the WTO on China's semiconductor integrated circuit value-added tax rebates, had been resolved; Memorandum of Understanding on Value-Added Tax Issues on Integrated Circuits in China".Subsequently, the two parties fulfilled their notification obligations to the WTO.The United States withdrew its complaint under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.So far, the China-US IC value-added tax dispute has been resolved. This case is the first time that the United States has filed accusations against China at the WTO since China joined the WTO at the end of 2001.According to the settlement agreement, China has agreed not to grant export tax rebates to new semiconductor manufacturers, and China will no longer grant tax rebates to foreign manufacturers that develop and design semiconductors in China.Starting from April 1, 2005, China will stop implementing tax rebates for domestic semiconductor manufacturers. On April 13, 2004, at the application of Fiesta Barbecue Co., Ltd. in Ontario, Canada, the Canadian Border Services Agency conducted an anti-dumping and countervailing investigation on barbecue grills originating in China; on November 19, 2004, the Canadian Border Services Agency Decided to terminate the anti-subsidy investigation on barbecue grills originating in China, and finally determined that among the 8 government subsidies listed in the anti-subsidy investigation questionnaire, Chinese export enterprises only obtained from the Chinese government’s preferential tax policies for foreign-invested enterprises In consideration of interests, after calculation, the subsidy rate is 1.4%. According to Canada's "Special Import Measures Act", the subsidy amount in this case is negligible.This case is the first case in which Canada has adopted countervailing measures against Chinese products, and it is also the first case in which China has encountered countervailing measures. On April 28, 2004, at the application of Leland Industries in Toronto, Canada, the Canadian Border Services Agency decided to conduct countervailing investigations on carbon steel and stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan Province of China; on December 9, 2004, The Canadian Border Services Agency made a final anti-subsidy ruling on carbon steel and stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan Province of China, and determined that the average subsidy amount for Chinese companies involved in the case was 1.25 yuan/kg. On January 7, 2005, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made a final ruling on damages, and the ruling was as follows: the dumping quantity and subsidy quantity of stainless steel screws originating in China are negligible, and the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations on this imported product were terminated. ; Subsidies for carbon steel screws originating in China have caused damage to Canadian domestic industries; Subsidies for stainless steel nuts and bolts originating in China have not caused damage or threatened damage to Canadian domestic industries. On June 17, 2004, in response to the application of the European Textile and Clothing Organization (AIUFFASS), the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on the 35th category of textiles (polyester long fiber fabrics) originating in China.Nearly 1,000 Chinese textile companies were involved in the case, mainly concentrated in Shaoxing, Ningbo, Hangzhou, Shanghai and other places, and the amount involved reached 580 million US dollars. 2005 In October 2005, the European Union conducted an anti-dumping field investigation on Chinese leather shoe manufacturers. year 2006 On March 16, 2006, the 25 member states of the European Union passed a proposal by the European Commission to impose anti-dumping duties on Chinese leather shoes. From April 7, 2006, the European Union imposed a temporary anti-dumping duty of 4% on Chinese leather shoes, and gradually raised the tax rate to 19.4% within 6 months. On October 5, the Council of the European Union passed the final ruling on the imposition of anti-dumping duties on leather shoes from China and Vietnam by a vote of 13 to 12, and decided to impose a two-year tax on leather shoes from the two countries starting from October 7. Anti-dumping duties of 16.5% and 10%, respectively. On March 28, 2006, the 44.6% anti-dumping duty on seven Chinese color TV exporters was resumed and will be implemented immediately. Summary of major anti-dumping cases against China in 2006: 1. South Africa: In 2006, South Africa launched an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese products, involving a total amount of US$50,000. The product involved was chopped glass fiber mats.By the end of 2006, there were 14 cases in which South Africa was still implementing anti-dumping measures against Chinese products. 2. India: In 2006, India launched 9 anti-dumping investigations on Chinese products, involving a total amount of US$180 million. The products involved included PS plate, persulfate, technical grade and food grade phosphoric acid, suspension grade PVC, wheels, Burning discs, vitamin A palmitate, ductile iron pipes (ductile iron fittings), and penicillin-G (penicillin industrial salt).By the end of 2006, there were 76 cases of anti-dumping measures against Chinese products in India. 3. Turkey: In 2006, Turkey initiated 12 trade remedy cases against China, involving a total amount of 530 million US dollars, including 5 anti-dumping cases, involving refractory bricks, polyester synthetic fibers, vulcanized rubber conveyor belts, log plywood and granite; There were 5 cases of safeguard measures, involving an amount of US$ 410 million, and the products involved included motorcycles, electric irons, vacuum cleaners with 110v and above, salt products, pure sodium chloride and footwear; 2 cases of special protection, involving an amount of US$ 60.99 million Products include tiles and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).By the end of 2006, Turkey had 41 anti-dumping cases, 5 safeguard measures and 1 special safeguard measure against China. 4. ASEAN: In 2006, ASEAN initiated 9 trade remedy cases against China, involving 150 million U.S. dollars, including 4 anti-dumping cases, involving 140 million U.S. dollars. The products involved included hot-rolled coils and high-carbon steel plates Articles, zinc oxide and glass bricks; 5 safeguard measures involving China, involving a total amount of US$12.969 million. The products involved include cast glass and rolled glass, sodium polytriphosphate, float glass, patterned glass and glass mirrors.By the end of 2006, ASEAN had 5 anti-dumping cases and 6 safeguard measures cases against China. 5. South Korea: In 2006, South Korea launched an anti-dumping investigation against China, involving 2.28 million US dollars, and the product involved was polyvinyl alcohol. By the end of 2006, South Korea was implementing anti-dumping measures against China in 14 cases. 6. Taiwan: On March 1, 2006, Taiwan launched an anti-dumping investigation on towels originating in the mainland.This case is the first anti-dumping investigation initiated by Taiwan on mainland products, involving a total amount of US$26 million. In 2006, Taiwan initiated three anti-dumping cases against the mainland, involving a total amount of US$67.64 million. The products involved included non-coated paper, footwear products (excluding sports shoes, work shoes and slippers), and towels.By the end of 2006, there was one case where Taiwan was implementing anti-dumping measures against the mainland. The agreement implementing Article VI of the GATT 1994 states that if, in the normal course of trade, a product is exported from one country to another at a price lower than that of the same product consumed in its own country comparable price, that is, below its normal value into the commercial channels of another country, the product will be considered dumped. Dumping occurs when products from one country enter another country's market at a price lower than the normal value and cause damage to the domestic competitive industry of the other country.Its constituent elements: 1. The product is sold at a price below its normal or fair value; 2. Such low-price sales have caused damage to the industry of the importing country, including substantive damage, substantive threat and substantive hindrance; 3. The damage was caused by low-priced sales, and there was a causal relationship between the two. First, dumping is an artificially low-price sales measure.According to different markets, the exporter sells the same commodity at a price lower than the market price of the commodity in the exporting country. Second, the motives and purposes of dumping are various, some are to sell surplus products, some are to compete for foreign markets and expand exports, but as long as it causes substantial damage or substantial threat to the establishment and development of a certain industry in the importing country or Substantial obstruction, it will incur the punishment of anti-dumping measures. Third, dumping is an act of unfair competition.Under the government's export incentive policy, producers often sell their products at low prices in order to obtain government export subsidies; at the same time, producers sell their products in foreign markets at dumping prices, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in another country's market and further Eliminate competitors, and then increase prices to obtain monopoly high profits. Fourth, the result of dumping often causes damage to the importer's economy or the interests of producers, especially predatory dumping disrupts the importer's market economic order and brings a devastating blow to the importer's economy. It should be said that it is reasonable to take anti-dumping measures in order to stop dumping, but if the implementation of anti-dumping measures exceeds its reasonable scope or degree, anti-dumping measures will also become a trade protectionist measure, thereby hindering the expansion of international trade. .For example, arbitrarily arbitrarily identifying a product that does not have dumping as a dumped product, or unfoundedly exaggerating the extent of dumping, thereby unreasonably implementing anti-dumping measures or inappropriately increasing the amount of anti-dumping duties, all of which will hinder normal import trade. At present, my country is the country that suffers the most anti-dumping investigations in the world.Most of the enterprises under investigation are private enterprises.Due to various reasons, many private enterprises are at a loss when encountering anti-dumping investigations and do not know how to deal with them.In fact, enterprises can achieve ideal results by actively responding to lawsuits, responding calmly, and adopting effective strategies.When responding to foreign anti-dumping investigations, private enterprises need to pay attention to the following twelve issues. In layman's terms, dumping refers to the entry of a product into another country's market at a price below its normal value.If the dumping of imported products causes damage to the domestic industry of the importing country, the domestic industry of the country may apply for an anti-dumping investigation.Anti-dumping is a remedy against unfair competition recognized by the World Trade Organization.The essence of the anti-dumping investigation is a means for the domestic industry of the importing country to seek legal relief. When an enterprise encounters an anti-dumping investigation, it must actively respond to the lawsuit.There is a strict timetable for anti-dumping investigations. If you do not actively respond to the lawsuit, the investigation agency may use information that is unfavorable to the parties if it is determined that the parties have not cooperated to the best of their ability.For example, in the U.S. wooden bedroom furniture anti-dumping case, a mandatory respondent failed to provide financial reports, and the U.S. Department of Commerce used available facts to reach a very unfavorable result for the company. Anti-dumping investigations involve a large number of legal and technical issues and are very complex.Under normal circumstances, it is difficult for an enterprise to independently respond to litigation based on its own strength. Therefore, it is necessary to hire a lawyer to represent the anti-dumping litigation.Enterprises should choose lawyers who are experienced and familiar with China's national conditions.The method of Chinese and foreign lawyers working together can be considered. When encountering anti-dumping investigations, companies should check whether their products are within the scope of the investigation.If you are not clear, you can ask the investigating agency for clarification. Questionnaires are an important form for investigation agencies to obtain information.After receiving the questionnaire, the enterprise should fill it out carefully, and should not be perfunctory.In the process of filling in, all kinds of data should be kept consistent, and there should be no "fighting" phenomenon.Enterprises should seek the advice of a lawyer when filling out the questionnaire.If the enterprise feels that there is not enough time to complete the questionnaire, it can request an extension to the investigation agency, and the investigation agency will usually approve the extension request.In the U.S. anti-dumping case of wooden bedroom furniture, the U.S. Department of Commerce postponed the submission of questionnaire responses several times. Field inspection is an important part of anti-dumping investigation.For enterprises, verification is not a bad thing, but a good thing, and enterprises should treat it positively.The verification results are closely related to the final ruling.Verification failure is very detrimental to the enterprise.In the anti-dumping case of wooden bedroom furniture in the United States, there was actually a respondent who refused the verification of the US Department of Commerce.The result is obvious, the US Department of Commerce used the available facts to the company according to the regulations, and the anti-dumping tax rate of the company was 198.08%. The market economy status has always been an important issue that plagues Chinese enterprises to deal with anti-dumping.Since Europe, the United States and other countries have always regarded China as a non-market economy country, when conducting anti-dumping investigations, they do not use the domestic price of the product but the price of a third country to determine the normal value of the product, which often leads to a higher dumping margin.In anti-dumping investigations, private enterprises should strive to obtain market economy status.In the EU's anti-dumping investigation, there is a precedent for Chinese enterprises to obtain market economy status. If the market economy status cannot be obtained, the private enterprise can recommend an appropriate substitute country to the investigation agency to determine the normal value of the product.Although the surrogate country recommended by the enterprise may not be selected by the investigation agency, the enterprise should not give up its efforts. Since most importing countries regard China as a non-market economy country, it is very unfavorable for Chinese enterprises to determine an anti-dumping tax rate for Chinese enterprises.Private enterprises are fully independent and not controlled by the government, so it is not difficult to obtain a separate tax rate. Even if the company is ruled to be dumping and anti-dumping duties are imposed, the company can still apply for a review, requesting a reduction in anti-dumping duties or revocation of anti-dumping duties in order to re-enter the country's market.Enterprises that have not exported to the country during the investigation period may apply for a new exporter review. Private enterprises can use the judicial mechanism to appeal and overturn the anti-dumping ruling of the investigation agency.In the United States, for example, decisions of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission are appealable to the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Enterprises can use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to resolve anti-dumping disputes through the government.Among the 23 anti-dumping disputes concluded by the World Trade Organization, many countries' anti-dumping measures were ruled to be in violation of the country's international obligations. Private enterprises should adopt long-term strategies in response to anti-dumping investigations.At the same time, it is necessary to establish an anti-dumping early warning mechanism, hire professionals, better handle anti-dumping affairs, and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in international trade. (Source of article: "Economic Daily")