Home >

Chinese Shoe Companies Appeal Against Anti-Dumping To EU High Court

2010/8/21 9:32:00 35

Anti Dumping Of Chinese Shoe Enterprises

By the end of June,

AOKANG

An appeal was made to the EU High Court on the anti-dumping cases of leather shoes which were tried by the court of first instance, which marks the final stage of legal proceedings in China's shoe companies and the European Union.

Since 2006, the European Union has launched anti-dumping investigations on Chinese leather shoes and has collected 16.5% of the two years' leather shoes.

Anti-dumping duty

。

At that time, 5 Chinese shoe companies such as AOKANG filed a judicial review to the European Court of first instance, on the grounds that the EU's cost analysis of the footwear products exported to EU by Chinese enterprises is not accurate.

In March 2010, after four years, the court of first instance rejected the claims of the 5 shoe companies.

In November 2009, the EU decided to continue to levy anti-dumping duties for 15 months.

According to the latest statistics from China Leather Industry Association, the previous anti-dumping duty resulted in a 20% reduction in the output of Chinese leather shoes exported to Europe.

About 40 million pairs of shoes were exported to the EU, which caused about twenty thousand workers to lose their jobs.

"The EU has imposed restrictions on leather shoes exported to China for nearly 15 years. This unequal treatment should come to a stop."

Wang Zhentao said that the reason why AOKANG continued to appeal to the EU high court is because the EU's discrimination against Chinese leather shoes is no longer tolerated, no matter from time to time or on the loss of Chinese leather shoes exports.

This is the reason why AOKANG continues to follow suit in the process of legal proceedings. Chinese shoe enterprises must learn to protect their legitimate rights and interests by law.

At present, there are 4 other countries besides AOKANG.

Shoe enterprises

The claim has been waiver.

"By reading the verdict of the European Court of first instance, we found that the verdict was unfair."

The Chinese lawyer, Pu Ling Chen, who represents the case, said that when calculating the magnitude of the damage, the EU actually violated the first article of the EU anti-dumping regulations.

When commenting on the EU's change of measures and calculation methods, the EU gave Chinese enterprises 5 days' deliberation time, and it did not meet the 10 day deadline stipulated by the regulations.

The interpretation of the court of first instance has also been debated in the interpretation of the seventeenth and 3 paragraphs of the European Union's anti-dumping regulations and ninth 5 cases.

Pu law also said: "because of the last legal process, there is still a possibility of rejection. However, no matter what the final result is, the appeal can at least allow countries to take anti-dumping measures to see that Chinese enterprises are enhancing their awareness of their legitimate rights and interests through the law."

At the same time, Chinese enterprises insist on safeguarding their rights, which will help to reduce the probability of anti-dumping measures taken by importing countries.