About $8 Billion In China'S Products Or Will Get Rid Of Countervailing "Robbery"

Us double war against China has been extinguished?

About $8 billion of China's products will get rid of countervailing efforts.

If it belongs to Africa

The United States Federal Circuit Court of appeal 19 days of a paper ruling, to give "negative" answer.

The ruling pointed out that countervailing measures were not applicable to products from non market economy countries.

In the eyes of many people in the industry, the ruling means that countervailing measures have been judged to be contrary to the laws of the United States. The U.S. Department of commerce can continue to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of the United States, but this possibility is not great. Since 2006, the United States has initiated 30 anti dumping and countervailing claims against China. The countervailing duty will cease. This is undoubtedly good news for Chinese engineering tires, floors, steel pipes and other related products, and will promote the export of these products.

Zhou Shijian, a senior researcher at the Sino US relations research center of Tsinghua University, told reporters yesterday that "double opposition" is just like a rat's bellows and two heads in the face of Chinese enterprises, which has just stopped the situation of "two heads" in Chinese enterprises.

Yu Shengxing, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's law school and a double anti expert, told the newspaper yesterday that since 2006, the United States launched a "double reverse" of Chinese products, which has obviously raised punitive tariffs on Chinese products.

Us products to China for five years

In November 20, 2006, the United States launched the first anti subsidy merger anti-dumping investigation on Chinese coated paper, which has cast a shadow over Sino US trade.

As early as the last century 80~90, some industries in the United States had planned to launch countervailing investigations against products such as China, but were rejected by the US government at that time.

In 1983, textile enterprises in the United States applied for textiles imported from China.

Since 1984, the US government has established the Convention, not adopting anti subsidy laws in countries such as China, which the United States considers "non market economies", because it is difficult to judge the extent of subsidies in these countries, and only apply anti-dumping to these countries.

However, the United States finally took the step of "go back on its feet".

In March 30, 2007, the US Department of Commerce initially ordered Chinese related enterprises to counteract subsidies to the US export of coated paper, and began to levy temporary countervailing duty on 10.9%~20.4%.

When the US Commerce Secretary Gutierrez announced the decision on that day, he said: "the Chinese government has selected some production enterprises to subsidize them, so they represent unfair competition.

We don't think this is a protective measure. We just use the relevant regulations. "

Gutierrez said that compared with 10 years ago, Chinese enterprises' decisions on production and export policies for subsidies have changed. These changes enable economists and the US Department of Commerce to measure the financial impact of subsidies.

Despite China's objection, the Commerce Department announced the final result of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Chinese coated paper in October 18, 2007, and decided to impose anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties against 21.12%~99.65% on Chinese coated paper producers and exporters.

Despite dramatic changes in the matter, the US International Trade Commission made the final ruling in November 20, 2007 to terminate the "double reverse" ruling on China's coated paper. However, it can not stop the US's "double opposition" to China. Up to now, the United States has filed "double reverse" Registration on 30 kinds of products, such as circular welded steel tubes, thin-walled rectangular steel tubes, engineering tires and bonded woven bags.

Contradiction or solution of repeated taxation

Zhou Shijian said that the United States is not able to rely on the situation of Chinese products against subsidies, is the abuse of "hegemonism" in international trade, the United States "double benefits" in the dual opposition, but this is totally untenable.

The two countries are self contradictory. Countervailing is only applicable to market economy countries. While the United States launched anti-dumping investigations, it did not recognize China's market economy status, and adopted some developed countries' products prices to replace China's domestic prices, thus ruling that China's exports had a higher dumping rate, which obviously existed "double" discrimination.

The decision of the US Federal Circuit appeals court has changed the "two heads" of Chinese enterprises. If we do not recognize China's market economy status, we can not adopt countervailing measures. Once the United States recognizes China's market economy status, at least half of China's anti-dumping cases will "rehabilitate" or reduce anti-dumping duties.

Wang Jianyu, the head of Guangdong Shanghai law firm, who had won the first double anti China lawsuit against China in 2004, told the newspaper that the probability of winning a lot of "double anti" lawsuits launched by the United States is negligible. As long as it involves Chinese state-owned enterprises, the United States has a subsidy.

The ruling of the US Federal Circuit appeals court will not only allow the us to stop countervailing duties against China, but also make it possible for the EU and Canada to converge on China's "double opposition".

Since the US Department of Commerce (DOC) has adopted "double reverse" on Chinese products, the Chinese government has been making constant representations. After DOC initially ruled that the subsidy of China's coated paper enterprises was established, the Chinese government took the US side to the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement body (DSB).

In September 19, 2008, the Chinese government again appealed to DSB.

In March 25, 2011, DSB passed the report of the panel of experts and the appellate body that ruled that the United States had adopted "double reverse" measures against some Chinese products in violation of the WTO rules.

At the same time, some Chinese prosecution enterprises also challenge the US government through the domestic judicial process.

Among them, the most notable concern is that the American importer GPX international tire company and Hebei Xingmao, China's export enterprise, have appealed to the US International Trade Court (CIT) for failing to accept DOC's final decision on the "double reverse" of the tires in China.

In September 2009, CIT ruled that the existing method of the US Department of Commerce led to the possibility of double taxation.

The US Department of Commerce appealed to the United States circuit court of appeal, so the 19 day ruling mentioned above was mentioned.

Some lawyers believe that the United States Congress does not exclude the amendment of the bill to allow non market economy countries to carry out countervailing investigations.

Of course, it is not easy for Congress to amend the law. It takes time to debate.