After nine months of silence, in early September, the EU once again raised anti-dumping "big sticks" on Chinese products: on September 4 and 5, the EU launched anti-dumping investigations on Chinese-made citric acid and MSG; After 15 months of review, the European Commission also proposed to impose another one-year anti-dumping duty on Chinese-made energy-saving lamps; while Chinese shoe enterprises, which are struggling under anti-dumping swords, have recently ushered in the EU's anti-circumvention investigation. ......
At the same time, a strong "reflection" voice also sounded from within the EU: EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson publicly stated that although it is often reasonable and correct to impose trade punitive measures such as anti-dumping duties, if anti-dumping measures limit The business strategy of EU companies pursuing reasonable profits, or in the case of China's energy-saving lamps, in flagrant disregard of the EU's energy-saving policies and the reality of European production, will also backfire. a rare period of silence
In fact, the EU is currently demonstrating the “reflection†of trade policy: in December 2006, the EU Trade Commission issued a “Green Book†to solicit public opinions and conduct the first large-scale assessment of trade measures including anti-dumping in 10 years. And discussion. The results of the "Green Paper" solicitation will be announced in the near future, when the European Commission will review the trade measures such as anti-dumping.
Looking back at recent years, China’s products have suffered from obvious trade fluctuations from trade surveys from the European Union: in 2005 and 2006, the EU initiated 9 and 12 trade remedy investigations against China respectively, and in 2007, trade remedy investigations from the EU appeared. A rare period of silence.
“The EU internal interest groups have been engaged in a fierce game. The calm performance and sudden increase in trade remedies are just an external manifestation of this game,†said Wu Zhenchang, chairman of Panyu Chuangxin Shoes Co., Ltd. In the EU anti-dumping investigation on Chinese footwear products, Wu Zhenchang initiated the organization of the "EU anti-dumping response alliance against Chinese footwear products", representing the Chinese shoe enterprises and the European Commission "a few rounds of war." On October 4 last year, the EU finally ruled that the anti-dumping duty of 16.5% on Chinese leather shoes was reduced, and the time limit was reduced to two years from the previous five years.
The game will continue
This year, a series of data changes have once again caught the attention of EU producers: since the introduction of anti-dumping duties, the number of leather shoes exported to Macao has increased significantly. Recently, the European Commission announced the official launch of an anti-circumvention investigation of Chinese leather shoes. The so-called "avoidance" refers to the fact that when a country's goods are subject to anti-dumping duties by another country, the producers reduce or avoid the imposition of anti-dumping duties by means of "bypass". Because of the ease of obtaining evidence, the anti-circumvention investigation is often as lethal as the anti-dumping investigation.
Whether it is anti-dumping or anti-circumvention, the EU has to face the fact that many large European companies have moved their production lines to China, Southeast Asian countries, or global sourcing, and the trade remedy policy limited to protecting local industries will be Injury the interests of European companies.
After the European Union issued the Green Paper, in addition to publicly collecting opinions on the Internet, it also specially held a seminar in Beijing to listen to the opinions of Chinese companies. Guo Yuwen of Nanhai Wanbang Shoes Industry once attended the seminar and spoke on behalf of the “Shoe Industry Response Allianceâ€. Guo Yuwen believes that the EU anti-dumping case against Chinese footwear products is a typical case, and the focus of disputes among stakeholders is whether the EU's trade protection policy should protect the industries that have fallen behind, or should protect the overall interests of the EU.
The EU issued a Green Paper to reflect on its trade protection policy, apparently because it has taken note of the fact that even frequent anti-dumping sticks will only force already globalized European companies to move from one production base to another. Cost, reduce profits. From this point of view, the EU will certainly adapt to the overall situation of globalization and adjust trade protection policies, but this adjustment will not be in place, because the game between different interests will continue.
At the same time, a strong "reflection" voice also sounded from within the EU: EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson publicly stated that although it is often reasonable and correct to impose trade punitive measures such as anti-dumping duties, if anti-dumping measures limit The business strategy of EU companies pursuing reasonable profits, or in the case of China's energy-saving lamps, in flagrant disregard of the EU's energy-saving policies and the reality of European production, will also backfire. a rare period of silence
In fact, the EU is currently demonstrating the “reflection†of trade policy: in December 2006, the EU Trade Commission issued a “Green Book†to solicit public opinions and conduct the first large-scale assessment of trade measures including anti-dumping in 10 years. And discussion. The results of the "Green Paper" solicitation will be announced in the near future, when the European Commission will review the trade measures such as anti-dumping.
Looking back at recent years, China’s products have suffered from obvious trade fluctuations from trade surveys from the European Union: in 2005 and 2006, the EU initiated 9 and 12 trade remedy investigations against China respectively, and in 2007, trade remedy investigations from the EU appeared. A rare period of silence.
“The EU internal interest groups have been engaged in a fierce game. The calm performance and sudden increase in trade remedies are just an external manifestation of this game,†said Wu Zhenchang, chairman of Panyu Chuangxin Shoes Co., Ltd. In the EU anti-dumping investigation on Chinese footwear products, Wu Zhenchang initiated the organization of the "EU anti-dumping response alliance against Chinese footwear products", representing the Chinese shoe enterprises and the European Commission "a few rounds of war." On October 4 last year, the EU finally ruled that the anti-dumping duty of 16.5% on Chinese leather shoes was reduced, and the time limit was reduced to two years from the previous five years.
The game will continue
This year, a series of data changes have once again caught the attention of EU producers: since the introduction of anti-dumping duties, the number of leather shoes exported to Macao has increased significantly. Recently, the European Commission announced the official launch of an anti-circumvention investigation of Chinese leather shoes. The so-called "avoidance" refers to the fact that when a country's goods are subject to anti-dumping duties by another country, the producers reduce or avoid the imposition of anti-dumping duties by means of "bypass". Because of the ease of obtaining evidence, the anti-circumvention investigation is often as lethal as the anti-dumping investigation.
Whether it is anti-dumping or anti-circumvention, the EU has to face the fact that many large European companies have moved their production lines to China, Southeast Asian countries, or global sourcing, and the trade remedy policy limited to protecting local industries will be Injury the interests of European companies.
After the European Union issued the Green Paper, in addition to publicly collecting opinions on the Internet, it also specially held a seminar in Beijing to listen to the opinions of Chinese companies. Guo Yuwen of Nanhai Wanbang Shoes Industry once attended the seminar and spoke on behalf of the “Shoe Industry Response Allianceâ€. Guo Yuwen believes that the EU anti-dumping case against Chinese footwear products is a typical case, and the focus of disputes among stakeholders is whether the EU's trade protection policy should protect the industries that have fallen behind, or should protect the overall interests of the EU.
The EU issued a Green Paper to reflect on its trade protection policy, apparently because it has taken note of the fact that even frequent anti-dumping sticks will only force already globalized European companies to move from one production base to another. Cost, reduce profits. From this point of view, the EU will certainly adapt to the overall situation of globalization and adjust trade protection policies, but this adjustment will not be in place, because the game between different interests will continue.
Steel Mast Pole,Polygonal Tubular Poles,Automatic Welding Pole
Xinjinlei Steel Industry Co., Ltd. , http://www.xjlpole.com