U.S. Trade Barriers Spearheaded China's Card Passenger Car Tires

After launching the special tire protection project for tires and engineering tire anti-dumping cases in 2009, the US may again raise its trade remedy stick two years later, pointing to another major product of the Chinese tire industry: truck and bus tires.

On November 16, 2011, a person in charge of the Tire Branch of the China Rubber Industry Association told reporters that there was indeed this rumor in the industry. “We are communicating, but it hasn’t happened yet.” According to a source from a reliable source, not long ago The Chinese Rubber Association has called a gathering of related manufacturers of truck tires to discuss the new round of trade disputes from the United States and the countermeasures that companies have taken. “Overseas protectionist sentiment has spread, and China's tire exports will face even tougher tests.” Deng Yaxi, executive vice president and secretary-general of the China Rubber Association, stated at an industry conference on November 8. In fact, in the past seven years, the Chinese tire industry has already taken 16 anti-dumping, countervailing and special safeguard investigations from 8 countries. Especially in September 2011, faced with the prosecution of the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, the WTO decided for the second time in Geneva that the United States imposed a punitive tariff on China's imports of passenger tires to the United States "in line with the WTO regulations," disappointing and angering the Chinese industry.

At the corporate level, Chinese companies chose to defend themselves against the U.S. Department of Commerce, and they won a stage victory in the engineering tire case. In September 2010, the U.S. International Trade Court formally ruled that the U.S. Department of Commerce shall order the termination of the anti-dumping anti-dumping levy on China's export of engineering tires. At the end of 2011, the U.S. Federal Circuit Circuit Court of Appeal will decide on the case. Li Yu, a lawyer of Winston Law Firm, the Chinese agent of the lawsuit, told reporters: Once the results of the first trial are maintained, “it may fundamentally change the way the US Department of Commerce conducts anti-dumping and countervailing investigations on Chinese export companies”. .

"Special Protection" Lost

In all trade remedies concerning the tire industry, the United States initiated the special case of the Chinese tire insurance for passenger cars to the United States is the most eye-catching. This is the largest amount of money involved after China's accession to the WTO, and it has also been controversial because of the protectionist stance adopted by the United States in the context of the financial crisis.

On April 20, 2009, the American Iron and Steel Workers Union filed an application to the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) for "special protection" measures against Chinese commercial tires exported to the United States, requesting the U.S. government to export passenger cars and light trucks to China. 21 million tires for minivans and sports cars are subject to import quota restrictions. The so-called “special protection” refers to the “Particular Product Transitional Safeguard Mechanism” in Article 16 of the “Protocol on China's Accession to the WTO”. Paragraphs 1 and 4 stipulate that if the Chinese products are exported to relevant WTO member countries, the number will increase too much. In order to pose threats or market disruption to the relevant products of these member countries, these member countries can take special safeguard measures to restrict imports for Chinese products. This is the first time since the PRC's accession to the WTO in 2001 that the United States has used "safeguard clauses" to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese products.

According to the regulations, anti-dumping cases are self-responsible by the company, and the non-destructive defense is organized by the industry association to respond collectively to the enterprise, and the Ministry of Commerce is responsible for responding to countervailing and special security cases. In April 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, industry associations, and tire companies responded quickly and did a lot of proof work. They hired lawyers and lobby groups to negotiate repeatedly with the US side and even wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama. However, these actions still failed to stop the ITC's application. On June 29th of that year, ITC proposed to impose tariffs on Chinese tires exported to the United States for three consecutive years. The Chinese delegation to the United States had no business negotiations. On September 11, Obama signed a three-year high tariff on Chinese passenger tires sold to the United States with a maximum tax of 35%.

Appeal WTO

Li Yu analyzed that “tire is an industry with high industrial concentration, and trade remedy has become a common way of international competition. After many years of grinding since the accession to the WTO, the Chinese tire industry has faced this kind of retreat from other industries. Friction can be said to be one of the fiercest industries to fight against.” Three days after Obama signed the special safeguard case, the Chinese government launched the WTO dispute resolution procedure. For the first time, as an independent plaintiff, he called for the establishment of an expert group to investigate. On December 13, 2010, the WTO announced that the transitional special safeguard measures taken by the United States against tires imported from China did not violate the rules of the organization. For the first time, China’s “Yu Yu”; on May 24, 2011, the Chinese government informed WTO arbitration. The organization decided to appeal the decision of the expert group on the WTO disputes between China and the United States. On September 5, the WTO Appellate Body issued a ruling on the Sino-U.S. tire trade dispute case in Geneva. It was determined that the United States imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese tires imported into the United States in line with WTO rules, and China frustrated for the second time.

Two years later, the "special security case" has already settled. China's passenger car tire manufacturers will resume exporting again in September 2012. In fact, the damage to the Chinese tire industry is serious. According to the introduction of the China Rubber Industry Association, the special security case resulted in a reduction or suspension of production by about 30 domestic tire companies, which affected the output value of China's tire industry of 2.2 billion U.S. dollars, and affected the employment of 100,000 or so tire workers. The worse effect is that following the initiation of the special security case in the United States, other countries have followed suit and India, Argentina, Brazil and other countries have filed or intends to launch special protection cases and anti-dumping cases against China. Cai Weimin, secretary-general of the China Rubber Industry Association’s tire division, pointed out: “After implementing the special safeguard measures, China’s export of American passenger tires fell by 23.6% in 2010 compared to 2009, and dropped by 6% in the first half of 2011. The United States imports from third countries. The number of tires increased by 20.2% in 2010 compared with 2009 and 9% in the first half of 2011. These numbers are enough to show that the previous Chinese tires exported to the United States did not threaten U.S.-related companies."

Winning the U.S. Department of Commerce

Appeals at the government level have failed and the corporate level is expected to win the US Department of Commerce while it is still in progress. In June 2007, U.S. manufacturer Titan Union Labor Union filed a complaint requesting anti-dumping duties on imported products. Bridgestone, the world's largest tire and rubber manufacturer, also supported this. In August 2008, the US International Trade Commission issued a final result of affirmative damages: the subsidy tax rate remained unchanged, the dumping rate of Hebei Xingmao was 28.69%, Guizhou Tire was 5.25%, and Tianjin was 8.44%. The three companies were subsidized at a rate of 14%. 2.45%, 6.85%; the other 23 companies responding individually 12.58%; the punitive tax rate of unreported companies is still 210.48%. Hebei Xingmao and its US parent company GPX dissatisfied this result and entrusted the Winston Institute to file a complaint. In the “methodology”, it was pointed out that the U.S. government (Ministry of Commerce) could not reasonably solve the “double calculation” problem and should cancel countervailing subsidies. decree. In September 2010, the U.S. International Trade Court ruled on the case. The U.S. Department of Commerce imposed anti-dumping investigations on non-market economies in China, and also conducted anti-subsidy investigations on China, resulting in a “double calculation” penalty rate for Chinese exporters. "It is unreasonable and illegal." Due to the dissatisfaction of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the court of second instance was chosen to appeal. This prolonged international lawsuit has not yet been completed. However, as far as the reporter knows, the United States Federal District Circuit Court of Appeals has held a hearing on October 6, 2011, and the verdict will be issued on the case by the end of the year. Once the outcome of the first instance ruling is maintained, it will mean that the US Commerce Department’s future anti-subsidy investigation against any industry in China is illegal without effective amendments to the non-market economy anti-dumping investigation rules to avoid double counting.

G100 Rigging Hardware

Connecting Link Coupling,Connecting Link,Safety Hook,Lifting Hook

Shandong Shenli Rigging Co.,LTD. , https://www.shenliriggingcn.com

This entry was posted in on