In the case of anti-dumping, the complainant and the respondent are needed, and finally there are comments.

On April 3rd, the United States International Trade Commission held a final ruling vote, and with an absolute vote of 4∶0, it was determined that China's ball bearings did not cause substantial damage or threat of damage to the American bearing industry, and the dumping case of China's ball bearings exported to the United States was not established. So far, the anti-dumping case of China's ball bearings exported to the United States, which lasted for 14 months, ended in the victory of China's bearing industry. The Ministry of Commerce, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products and other departments recently revealed the litigation process. Giving up litigation means giving up the market. This anti-dumping lawsuit started on February 13, 2002. American Bearing Association filed an anti-dumping complaint against China's ball bearings exported to the United States with the United States International Trade Commission, and the latter immediately published the investigation results on its website on February 15. This is the first time that American Bearing Association has used "anti-dumping", a trade protection measure allowed by WTO rules, to try to sanction China products after China joined the WTO. Ball bearing is a kind of widely used mechanical parts, and it is also one of the bulk mechanical and electrical commodities that China exports to the United States for more than 654.38 billion dollars every year. The application for anti-dumping investigation submitted by the American Bearing Association involves the export of goods worth more than 300 million US dollars to the United States. If the case is lost, the anti-dumping duty on China's ball bearing products entering the United States will be 17% to 246%, and the case will be reviewed annually by the US Department of Commerce. Director Liu Danyang of the Bureau of Import and Export Fair Trade of the Ministry of Commerce said that the purpose of anti-dumping investigations in various countries is not to hold the parties concerned accountable, but to limit their future "dumping" behavior, which is often aimed at a product, not an enterprise. Therefore, the automatic abandonment of the enterprises involved means giving up the market. The preliminary hearing of this case will be held on March 6, 2002. After learning this news, Hao Wei, Secretary General of the Basic Parts Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products, and Xiangjun Gao, Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Chamber of Commerce, paid an emergency visit to the United States on February 18. Within five days, they had serious discussions with a number of American law firms about responding to the case, and finally decided that a team of senior lawyers and economic experts from American Guowei Kaiping International Law Firm would be China's legal representative in the review stage of the US International Trade Commission. According to the analysis of Electromechanical Chamber of Commerce, most application fields in the United States require high-quality ball bearings, while China ball bearings with relatively low quality are not used, but mainly supplied by manufacturers in the United States, Japan and Europe. Ball bearings exported from China to the United States are mostly used in roller skates, special lamps, conveyor belts, rollers, lawn mowers and other fields. Previously, products from other countries dominated this market, not from the United States. The ball bearing products exported from China to the United States were essentially a supplement to the American bearing industry. I export less than 4% of ball bearings to the United States every year. Therefore, there is no possibility of damage to members of American Bearing Association. On March 6th, 2002, at the preliminary hearing in Washington, Hu Ruoqian, the representative of American General Bearing Company, as a witness in China, presented a large amount of evidence to the judges of the US International Trade Commission, which strongly proved that China's ball bearings exported to the United States did not have any damage or threat of damage to American bearing enterprises. However, in the preliminary ruling vote held on April 29th of the same year, the United States International Trade Commission still made a preliminary ruling on the damage of ball bearings originating in China by a vote of 3-2. The final ruling vote won in one fell swoop. According to the procedure, the US Department of Commerce immediately launched a dumping investigation. After many complaints, on February 26th this year, the US Department of Commerce announced the final dumping ruling on ball bearings and their parts originating in China: the dumping margins of 45 enterprises including Zhejiang Xinchang Pierre Bearing Company, Wanxiang Bearing Group Company, Ningbo Cixing Company, Ningbo Cixing Company and Changshan Import and Export Company were 8.33, 7.22, 0.59, 7.80 and 59.30 respectively. Up to now, except for Ningbo Cixing Company, all responding manufacturers in China have been ruled to have different degrees of dumping. In order to win the final victory, Hao Wei and his party went to the United States again on March 3, and organized my lawyer, American General Bearing Company and its lawyers, Zhejiang Xinchang Pierre Bearing Company and its lawyers, Tiansheng Bearing Company and its lawyers to rationally and effectively refute the unreasonable accusations of American Bearing Association at the final hearing of the case held by the US International Trade Commission on March 6. The United States finally accepted and recognized our reasons for responding to the lawsuit, and completely rejected the unreasonable demands of the American Bearing Association in the final vote held by the US International Trade Commission on April 3. Focus on the overall situation and don't give orders to others. In the review stage of the US International Trade Commission, our responding representative must be a representative of the industry to be qualified to respond. China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products has played a very good role as a member representative. Hao Wei said that under the effective organization and guidance of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products, hundreds of ball bearing exporters exported to the United States submitted questionnaires to the US International Trade Commission on time within a few days before March 4, 2002. Due to the informative and powerful information provided, as many as 48 enterprises have obtained separate tax treatment from the US Department of Commerce. Hao Wei lamented that most enterprises are facing such international lawsuits for the first time, which fully reflects the excellent overall quality of China bearing enterprises and their ability to respond to anti-dumping investigations. Hao Wei said that winning the case was a valuable achievement made by all the staff of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products and all the responding enterprises through 14 months of hard work day and night. I hope that relevant enterprises will focus on the overall situation and do not give orders to others. Why did the trade friction between China and its trading partners increase after it was often "anti-dumping" into the WTO? In particular, the European Union has repeatedly imposed restrictive policies on China products, and the United States has also adopted some practices that deviate from WTO rules in the trade of steel and agricultural products. According to authoritative statistics, from March to June, 2002, there were 38 anti-dumping and safeguard measures initiated only against China's export products, including 7 initiated by developed members 19 and 2 initiated by developing members 12. On the whole, other members who have trade disputes with China are still concentrated in developed countries such as the United States, Japan, the European Union and Canada, and developing countries such as India and Latin America. Friction products are mostly labor-intensive and low value-added products for China; The industries involved in the dispute are mostly industries with contradictions between developed and developing countries, such as steel trade friction, which is already a sunset industry in the United States and a very important industry for China; The main causes of trade disputes are non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping, countervailing and technical barriers to trade. /pages/2003-4-24/s7673.html An overview of the anti-dumping case of honey between China and the United States and its enlightenment (June 3, 2005) 1994 The anti-dumping case of honey filed by the United States against China is the first time that the Chinese and American governments have used the terms of the standstill agreement to handle anti-dumping investigations. 1994 10 year 10 month, the anti-dumping law was used to sue China honey for dumping to the US market at a price lower than the fair value. In the preliminary ruling of this case, the Ministry of Commerce took India as a substitute country. Due to many incomparable factors between the selected substitute country and China, the dumping margin calculated by the Ministry of Commerce is too high, reaching as high as 1.25%. This result not only reflects the unfairness and injustice of the trial, but also gives the respondent in China a clear message, that is, if the dumping trial continues, China's honey export to the United States may be completely blocked under the condition of high tax rate. To this end, China hired lawyers and put pressure on the government through the main consumers of American honey. Finally, the Ministry of Commerce accepted the way of suspending the agreement and stopped the anti-dumping investigation. The relevant provisions and contents of the pause agreement in the American anti-dumping law have been basically formatted and signed by the Ministry of Commerce for implementation. In the standstill agreement signed in this dumping case, the main clauses are as follows: 1. Objective The main purposes of the standstill agreement are: to prevent imported products from suppressing and lowering the prices of similar products in the American market; Protect the interests of domestic consumers; Easy to monitor in importing countries. The draft standstill agreement in this case basically achieved the above three objectives, so the bilateral governments of China and the United States reached an agreement on August 2 1995. The agreement stipulates that the anti-dumping investigation on all honey imported from China will be terminated from the date of publication of the Federal Gazette, and all the import deposits paid before will be refunded. The import of honey from China will be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the standstill agreement. 2. According to the export quantity restriction agreement, China's annual honey export to the United States is 43.925 million pounds. According to the growth of American honey market, the adjustment of export volume should not exceed 6% of annual quota at most. Quotas are allocated once every six months and are allowed to be transferred and borrowed. 3. The reference price shall be published quarterly by the Ministry of Commerce and discussed with the China Municipal Government before it is determined. The reference price is 92% of the weighted average price of honey imported from other countries in the United States in the last six months. The unit price data should be public and can be retrieved from statistical data. If the accused product cannot be sold at a price lower than the reference price, the China Municipal Government shall ensure that the export price is equal to or higher than the reference price, and provide relevant contract and price information for verification by the Ministry of Commerce. 4. Term of Agreement This suspension agreement is valid for five years, starting from August 1 day, 2000. Either party may propose to suspend the agreement. The U.S. government should review this agreement one year in advance within the validity period, and if no breach is found, it can propose to terminate this agreement. The China government can notify the US Department of Commerce 60 days in advance to terminate this agreement, but the anti-dumping duty will take effect. 5. Quota Certificate According to the export quota, the China government directly and indirectly controls the quantity of the accused products exported to the United States, and shall ensure that the certificate issuance procedure is established within 90 days after the entry into force of this agreement, and the complaint mechanism of relevant responding parties such as chambers of commerce, exporters, manufacturers and agents and the punishment mechanism for violation of this agreement are established. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the export quantity does not exceed the limit and the export price is not lower than the reference price. Provide materials on the implementation of quotas to the US Department of Commerce within 30 days after every six months. 6. The Government of China should take all feasible measures to prevent circumvention. If the facts are found, the China government should solve them as soon as possible, including requiring exporters to indicate in their contracts with third countries that they are not allowed to export the products to the United States by means of re-export, transshipment, bypassing Hong Kong and various forms of transfer, and inform the US Department of Commerce of the results within ten days after treatment; Or the United States unilaterally takes measures to deduct China's corresponding quota, and informs China of the results and basis. 7. Verification: China government should provide all information for verification, and the verification time can be limited to one year or longer, which can be determined by both parties through consultation according to the implementation of the agreement. It enlightens us that the handling of China's honey anti-dumping case is another example of properly applying the relevant provisions of WTO anti-dumping rules, and it is also a good way to solve bilateral trade frictions. It can be seen that responding to the anti-dumping investigation is not the only choice, especially when the preliminary ruling result of the investigation is obviously unfavorable to China and it is estimated that the situation is not sure to be reversed at the final ruling, using the pause agreement is also a reliable choice to solve the problem. Of course, this requires the strong support and intervention of relevant government agencies in China.