The EU was the first region to file anti-dumping against China. In 1979, the EU filed anti-dumping charges against China's mechanical alarm clock and sodium saccharin. By the end of 1999, the EU had 80 anti-dumping cases against China. Moreover, the surveys after 1990 accounted for more than 70% of the total, and it is the region with the most anti-dumping investigations against China in Western countries. In the past 20 years, it has affected about 10% of China's exports, and its losses have exceeded US$3 billion. China has become the primary goal of EU anti-dumping measures.
In 1999, the EU's anti-dumping against China was even more intensive. From January to October, 12 cases were filed, exceeding the number of cases filed over the years, involving yellow phosphorus, medium-thick steel plates, horse steel pipe fittings, 14-inch color picture tubes, CD boxes, bicycle parts and other products. The total value is nearly $300 million.
The EU enacted the first anti-dumping law in 1968, and the specific provisions of this law were later revised several times. The current law came into effect in 1996 with the aim of incorporating the basic rules of the WTO anti-dumping agreement into EU law. This law is called Regulation No. 384/96.
In the European Union, the institutions dealing with anti-dumping cases mainly include the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Advisory Committee and the Court of First Instance of the European Union.
The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union, responsible for implementing the obligations arising from the EU Treaty, implementing the decisions of the Council of Ministers and submitting recommendations to the Council. The European Commission is based in Brussels and is divided into different departments. The first Customs Division is responsible for trade and anti-dumping matters. The dumping investigation and the industrial damage investigation are respectively handled by different business departments, each with about 100 people. The European Commission plays a very important role in the implementation of trade law. It is the main agency dealing with anti-dumping matters and the main executive department of the anti-dumping law. It has the power to initiate and end investigations, impose temporary and fixed anti-dumping duties, and is entitled to accept price commitments from exporters.
The Council of Ministers is composed of a representative from each member state. The Council is primarily responsible for the legislation of the Community and authorizes all important decisions. The Council does not automatically accept the recommendations of the European Commission. Only the board of directors can decide to impose a fixed anti-dumping duty. It is primarily responsible for making regulations and passing final decisions.
The advisory committee is composed of representatives of member states, and the European Commission sends a representative to serve as chairman. The committee usually meets in Brussels. The Commission has had a major impact on the Commission's decision-making because it mainly advises the Commission on anti-dumping investigations and measures to be taken, and more than 200 people are engaged in anti-dumping investigations in this committee.
The Commission shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee on the calculation of the extent of dumping and dumping, the existence and extent of damage, the causal relationship between dumping and damage, and the measures to be taken.
The court of first instance is located in Luxembourg and has jurisdiction over anti-dumping and countervailing cases. For exporters who disagree with the European Commission's ruling, this is actually an appeal court.
The EU's anti-dumping law stipulates that when determining the normal value, it is first necessary to determine whether the exporting country is a market economy country. If not, the European Commission would consider its domestic price not to be a reliable basis for determining normal value, but would take other measures. The EU has always regarded our country as a non-market economy country. Therefore, when calculating the normal value, the European Commission often uses the price of the “appropriate†third country (substitute country) to determine the price and cost. The calculated result is seriously divorced from the reality of our country and is very unfair to Chinese manufacturers. Since July 1, 1998, this attitude has changed. In the anti-dumping investigation involving China and Russia, the European Commission no longer necessarily believes that non-market economy treatment is appropriate. Council Regulation No. 905/99 provides that if companies involved in anti-dumping investigations can demonstrate that they are operating under market economy conditions, the domestic prices and costs of the exporting country should be used to determine normal value.
The EU Anti-Dumping Law also stipulates that the collection of anti-dumping duties must be in the interest of the Community. Therefore, even if the European Commission makes a ruling on both dumping and damage, if the European Commission believes that the taxation is not in the interest of the community, then it may still not take any measures. For example, in the rosin case against China, the European Commission considered that the negative effect of taxation on rosin users exceeded the benefits brought to the EU industry, and no measures were taken.
Source: HC Network
1
In 1999, the EU's anti-dumping against China was even more intensive. From January to October, 12 cases were filed, exceeding the number of cases filed over the years, involving yellow phosphorus, medium-thick steel plates, horse steel pipe fittings, 14-inch color picture tubes, CD boxes, bicycle parts and other products. The total value is nearly $300 million.
The EU enacted the first anti-dumping law in 1968, and the specific provisions of this law were later revised several times. The current law came into effect in 1996 with the aim of incorporating the basic rules of the WTO anti-dumping agreement into EU law. This law is called Regulation No. 384/96.
In the European Union, the institutions dealing with anti-dumping cases mainly include the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the Advisory Committee and the Court of First Instance of the European Union.
The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union, responsible for implementing the obligations arising from the EU Treaty, implementing the decisions of the Council of Ministers and submitting recommendations to the Council. The European Commission is based in Brussels and is divided into different departments. The first Customs Division is responsible for trade and anti-dumping matters. The dumping investigation and the industrial damage investigation are respectively handled by different business departments, each with about 100 people. The European Commission plays a very important role in the implementation of trade law. It is the main agency dealing with anti-dumping matters and the main executive department of the anti-dumping law. It has the power to initiate and end investigations, impose temporary and fixed anti-dumping duties, and is entitled to accept price commitments from exporters.
The Council of Ministers is composed of a representative from each member state. The Council is primarily responsible for the legislation of the Community and authorizes all important decisions. The Council does not automatically accept the recommendations of the European Commission. Only the board of directors can decide to impose a fixed anti-dumping duty. It is primarily responsible for making regulations and passing final decisions.
The advisory committee is composed of representatives of member states, and the European Commission sends a representative to serve as chairman. The committee usually meets in Brussels. The Commission has had a major impact on the Commission's decision-making because it mainly advises the Commission on anti-dumping investigations and measures to be taken, and more than 200 people are engaged in anti-dumping investigations in this committee.
The Commission shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee on the calculation of the extent of dumping and dumping, the existence and extent of damage, the causal relationship between dumping and damage, and the measures to be taken.
The court of first instance is located in Luxembourg and has jurisdiction over anti-dumping and countervailing cases. For exporters who disagree with the European Commission's ruling, this is actually an appeal court.
The EU's anti-dumping law stipulates that when determining the normal value, it is first necessary to determine whether the exporting country is a market economy country. If not, the European Commission would consider its domestic price not to be a reliable basis for determining normal value, but would take other measures. The EU has always regarded our country as a non-market economy country. Therefore, when calculating the normal value, the European Commission often uses the price of the “appropriate†third country (substitute country) to determine the price and cost. The calculated result is seriously divorced from the reality of our country and is very unfair to Chinese manufacturers. Since July 1, 1998, this attitude has changed. In the anti-dumping investigation involving China and Russia, the European Commission no longer necessarily believes that non-market economy treatment is appropriate. Council Regulation No. 905/99 provides that if companies involved in anti-dumping investigations can demonstrate that they are operating under market economy conditions, the domestic prices and costs of the exporting country should be used to determine normal value.
The EU Anti-Dumping Law also stipulates that the collection of anti-dumping duties must be in the interest of the Community. Therefore, even if the European Commission makes a ruling on both dumping and damage, if the European Commission believes that the taxation is not in the interest of the community, then it may still not take any measures. For example, in the rosin case against China, the European Commission considered that the negative effect of taxation on rosin users exceeded the benefits brought to the EU industry, and no measures were taken.
Source: HC Network
1
Zhejiang Jingjing Insulation Materials Co., Ltd. , http://www.zjepoxyglasssheet.com