Brief Analysis of the US Anti-dumping Case against China Wooden Bedroom Furniture
Release date: September 30th, 2005 0 1: 25: 10 Total visits: 9 18.
China Trade Relief Information Network Editorial Department Yuyang
The US anti-dumping case against wooden bedroom furniture originating in China is the highest amount involved in the US anti-dumping case against China and the highest amount involved in the US anti-dumping investigation against a single country, involving nearly US$ 654.38 billion. The ruling of the United States on the anti-dumping case against wooden bedroom furniture in China shows that among more than 30 enterprises/kloc-0 in China, only Tianjin Ke Mei Company has obtained zero tax rate. In terms of legal procedure, the focus of the dispute in this case mainly focuses on three aspects: market-oriented industries, separate tax rates and substitute countries. From the preliminary ruling and final ruling of the US Department of Commerce on this case, we can see that the issue of market economy status is still the basis for China enterprises to deal with many anti-dumping problems in the United States, and it also shows that the situation for China enterprises to deal with anti-dumping in the United States is still very grim.
I. Brief introduction of the case
time
event
June 3, 20031+0
The US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission accept applications.
June 3, 20031+0
The United States International Trade Commission has established an application number.
065438+2003 10 month
The United States International Trade Commission issued an announcement, deciding to start the industrial injury investigation procedure for wooden bedroom furniture originating in China.
20031October 265438
The us international trade commission held a hearing.
2003124 October
The US Department of Commerce issued an announcement to extend the filing time.
65438+February 2003
The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an announcement to initiate an anti-dumping investigation on wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. More than 65,438+000 enterprises were involved, involving a total amount of 957.9 million US dollars.
0 19 2004 10 month
The U.S. International Trade Commission voted to preliminarily determine whether the products involved caused damage to domestic industries in the United States.
065438+2004 10/2
The US International Trade Commission submitted the preliminary results to the US Department of Commerce.
2004120 October
The opinion of the US International Trade Commission is sent to the US Department of Commerce.
June 24(th), 2004
The U.S. Department of Commerce issued a preliminary ruling announcement to make a preliminary ruling on the anti-dumping of wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. The dumping margin of China enterprises involved is 4.90% ~ 198.08%.
July 2004
Announcement issued by the United States International Trade Commission and its schedule of final adjudication stage.
August 05 days, 2004
The U.S. Department of Commerce revised the preliminary ruling of this case, including modifying the dumping margin of some enterprises responding to the lawsuit in China, and modifying some enterprises in China that were preliminarily ruled to apply the general tax rate on June 24, 2004 to apply the "separate tax rate".
September. 09, 2004
The US Department of Commerce revised the preliminary ruling of this case.
200419 October
The us international trade commission held a hearing.
2004 10 month
The United States Department of Commerce issued a final ruling announcement, making a final ruling on the anti-dumping of wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. The dumping margin of China enterprises involved is 0.79% ~ 198.08%.
65438+February 2004
The U.S. International Trade Commission made a final vote on whether the products involved caused damage to domestic industries in the United States; Six members of the United States International Trade Commission made a positive final ruling on the industrial damage of wooden bedroom furniture originating in China.
65438+February 22, 2004
The US International Trade Commission submitted its final ruling to the US Department of Commerce.
65438+February 28, 2004
The US Department of Commerce revised the final anti-dumping ruling in this case, including the dumping margin of some responding enterprises in China and the individual tax rate. The number of enterprises receiving individual tax rate is the same as that at the time of the final ruling of the US Department of Commerce in 2004 (1 17).
Two. Overview of investigation process
(1) products involved
The product under investigation is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally (but not limited to) combined design, production and sales, usually called bedroom cover or bedroom group. Wherein each component basically adopts the same style, the same material or the same appearance. The products involved are mainly made of wood materials (including solid wood and processed wood materials, such as sawdust and fibers) or other wood materials (plywood, plywood, plastic plywood and fiberboard), regardless of whether they have wood veneer or veneer or pressed surface, regardless of whether they contain non-wood parts or decorations (such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic or other resins), regardless of whether they have been assembled, processed or finished. The customs codes of the products involved are 94035090.40, 9405090.80 and 7099250 respectively.
(2) investigation period
The investigation period of this case should be from April/KLOC-0 to September 30, 2003.
(3) Substitute country
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Philippine and China have the same level of economic development. According to the availability and credibility of information, the US Department of Commerce chose India as an alternative country on the grounds that India is a major producer of wooden bedroom furniture, and its economic development is roughly equal to that of China.
(4) Separate tax rate
According to the legal and factual standards of separate tax rate established in the "Fireworks" anti-dumping case, the U.S. Department of Commerce believes that enterprises that are forced to respond to the lawsuit and some enterprises involved in applying for separate tax rate meet the standards for applying for separate tax rate and are not affected by politics in fact and law.
Government control, approval to obtain a separate tax rate.
(5) Universal tax rate
There are far more enterprises exporting wooden bedroom furniture to the United States than those applying for separate tax rates. The US Department of Commerce issued a questionnaire "Q&; V ",only 137 exporters of products involved applied for separate tax rates, among which 7 enterprises were forced to respond to the lawsuit. On February 2, 2004, the United States Department of Commerce sent part A of the questionnaire to the China Department of Commerce. There is no questionnaire about "Q&"; Five, "the general tax rate is applicable to the exporters of the products involved in the lawsuit.
(6) Normal value
The US Department of Commerce uses the factor of production method to calculate the normal value of the products involved in China. According to the Factor of Production Law, the US Department of Commerce will multiply the input of the factor of production submitted by the enterprises involved in China during the investigation period by the price of the corresponding factor of production in the substitute country (in this case, the substitute country is India), plus a certain proportion of manufacturing expenses, sales and management expenses, profits and certain packaging expenses, which is the normal value of the products involved in China. If an input comes from a market economy country and is paid in the currency of a market economy country, the US Department of Commerce will calculate the input according to the actual price.
(7) Export price
The seven compulsory responding enterprises have nothing to do with American importers, and the US Department of Commerce determines the export price according to the actual export price. Some transactions in lacquer technology and Shengmark are related to American importers, and the US Department of Commerce determines export prices according to their structural prices. The U.S. Department of Commerce calculates the export price and structural export price of the products involved according to the FOB price, the arrival price or the price sold to the unrelated buyers in the United States between the enterprises involved and the unrelated importers in the United States, and deducts foreign inland freight, domestic commission, sea freight and marine insurance on this basis.
(VIII) Overview of related industries in the United States
In 2003, there were 52 wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers in the United States.
Location: Mainly concentrated in Virginia, North Carolina and California.
Number of employees in 2002: 3 1990.
Estimated consumption in the United States in 2002: $4.4 billion.
In 2002, the total import of wooden bedroom furniture in the United States accounted for 52.7% of the total domestic consumption.
III. The focus and brief analysis of the dispute in this case.
The focus of the dispute in this case mainly includes: market-oriented industries, separate tax rates and substitute countries.
(a) Market-oriented industries
In the 1980s, countries traditionally regarded as non-market economies began to carry out market-oriented economic reforms and achieved remarkable results. In the anti-dumping cases involving these countries, some exporters of the products involved suggested that although the exporting countries are non-market economy countries, the enterprises involved operate according to market standards, and the products involved should be treated equally with the products of market economy countries when determining the normal value and collecting anti-dumping duties.
The US Customs Tax Law 1930, revised by 1994, stipulates that under certain circumstances, the normal value of imported products from non-market economy countries can be determined by market economy methods. The 1930 customs tax law of the United States does not clearly define what "special circumstances" are. In practice, the US Department of Commerce uses the "market-oriented industry" test to determine whether the "special circumstances" stipulated in the US Tariff and Consumption Tax Act 1930 exist. There are three testing standards for "market-oriented industries" of the US Department of Commerce: (1) There is no actual government intervention or intervention in the pricing or output of the products involved; (2) The industries that produce the products involved should be dominated by private or collective ownership, which may include state-owned enterprises, but the large proportion of state-owned enterprises is not conducive to making a ruling that it constitutes a "market-oriented industry"; (3) All important inputs, whether material or immaterial (such as labor and management fees), must be purchased at the price determined by the market.
In practice, in anti-dumping cases, the US Department of Commerce divides the market economy into four levels: (1) market economy countries, (2) market-oriented industries, (3) individual tax rates, and (4) general tax rates in non-market economy countries. For each level, the US Department of Commerce uses different standards to calculate the normal value. At present, the US Department of Commerce has not recognized China as a market economy country in anti-dumping cases. Therefore, exporters of products involved in China cannot enjoy the treatment of market economy countries. If the enterprises involved can apply for the "market-oriented industry" treatment of the US Department of Commerce, the normal value can be determined according to the data of the exporting country.
On June 5438+1October 65438+May, 2004, Tianjin Ke Mei and Lacquer Technology filed an application with the US Department of Commerce on behalf of the respondent enterprises in China, requesting the US Department of Commerce to give the respondent enterprises in China "market-oriented industry" treatment. On February 2, 2004, the US Department of Commerce received the evidence submitted by the respondent, indicating that the respondent enterprises in China did not meet the standard of "market-oriented industry" because the wooden bedroom furniture in China had government control factors, which distorted the production cost. On April 20th, 2004, the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association filed an application with the US Department of Commerce on behalf of the responding enterprises in China, requesting the US Department of Commerce to give the responding enterprises in China "market-oriented industry" treatment. In the application, Zhonggong pointed out that the wooden bedroom furniture industry in China has become a market-oriented industry. Therefore, when calculating the normal value of the products involved, the method of applying products from non-market countries should no longer be adopted, but should be calculated according to the relevant provisions of the US Customs Tax Law 1930.
On May 5, 2004, the complainant questioned the application filed by the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association to the US Department of Commerce on behalf of the responding enterprises in China, and pointed out that it was inappropriate for China to file an application to make the preliminary ruling stipulated by the US Department of Commerce in a short time. On May 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce received an application from the Ministry of Commerce of China entrusted by the U.S. Embassy in China, requesting that enterprises responding to lawsuits in China be given "market-oriented industry" treatment. On May 14, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce wrote to the Furniture Branch of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Products, the China Furniture Association and the Ministry of Commerce of China, stating that there was no sufficient and substantial evidence to start the "market-oriented industry" test. On May 28th, 2004, the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association submitted materials to the US Department of Commerce, which showed that the enterprises responding to the lawsuit in China met the test standard of "market-oriented industry" in the United States.
In order to consider the application of the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association for the "market-oriented industry" test, the US Department of Commerce requires the enterprises involved to provide all the evidence and information supporting the "market-oriented industry" test standard. The U.S. Department of Commerce specifically pointed out that although the U.S. Department of Commerce has limited the number of enterprises responding to anti-dumping investigations, the application of "market-oriented industries" should test all enterprises involved in the whole industry. On May 28th, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce received the evidence and materials submitted by the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association to evaluate the "market-oriented industry". The data submitted include "all or almost all" data of China industry. The Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts and China Furniture Association pointed out that the data and materials submitted this time and the data submitted by the respondents during the investigation meet the standards of "market-oriented industry" in the United States. At the same time, these data also show that the wooden bedroom furniture enterprises in China are completely private or private enterprises.
However, the United States did not give China the treatment of "market-oriented industry" in the preliminary ruling. The U.S. Department of Commerce believes that the application for testing market-oriented industries submitted by relevant departments and enterprises in China and related evidence materials are too close to the legal time of preliminary determination in the United States, and there is not enough time to test the market-oriented industries of the enterprises involved. However, the US Department of Commerce also pointed out that it will continue to consider the "market-oriented industry" test.
It can be seen from the preliminary statement of the US Department of Commerce that the "market-oriented industry" test is aimed at the industry, not the manufacturer of the products involved. This requires enterprises applying for the "market-oriented industry" test to provide information including almost all industrial producers. From a practical point of view, in almost all anti-dumping cases, there are always some enterprises that do not respond or cooperate. Therefore, if the responding enterprise can't provide information about almost all industrial producers, it can't get the treatment of "market-oriented industry" from the US Department of Commerce.
The Furniture Branch of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts, the China Furniture Association and the China Municipal Government requested the US Department of Commerce to calculate the dumping margin according to the market economy conditions, and sent out questionnaires to collect the required data and information. At the same time, it is pointed out that the US Department of Commerce should continue to consider the "market-oriented industry" test of enterprises involved in China according to the statement in the preliminary ruling. The Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts, China Furniture Association, China Municipal Government and starcorp also stated that it is the legal obligation of the US Department of Commerce to consider the "market-oriented industry" test for enterprises involved in China. This legal obligation comes from the three standards of the "market-oriented industry" test of the US Department of Commerce. At the same time, the US court also admitted in this case that the "market-oriented industry" test is the rule of the US Department of Commerce in anti-dumping investigations. In this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce did not start the "market-oriented industry" test, not because the data provided by the respondent could not meet the three standards of its "market-oriented industry" test. Ignoring the problem of "market-oriented industries" in anti-dumping investigation is just like ignoring this relationship when adjusting normal value or export price, which has great influence on the investigation results. The reason why the US Department of Commerce did not start the "market-oriented industry" test is not in line with the law. The law allows the U.S. Department of Commerce to use relatively flexible procedures to complete all necessary procedures during the statutory investigation period, such as sampling, calculating export price or normal value through weighted average, or selecting compulsory responding enterprises. The U.S. Department of Commerce did not inform the respondent of the deadline for submitting the test data of "market-oriented industry", and the reason for refusing to start the test of "market-oriented industry" was special and purely procedural. The Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts, China Furniture Association and China Municipal Government specifically pointed out that the US Department of Commerce had several opportunities to inform the respondent of the deadline for submitting the test data of "market-oriented industries", but the US Department of Commerce did not do so.
At the same time, the decision of the US Department of Commerce does not meet the transparency requirements of the investigation procedure, substantive justice and due process principles. Due to time constraints, the US Department of Commerce refused to start the "market-oriented industry" test. However, the US Department of Commerce's anti-dumping investigation procedure and its "market-oriented industry" test standard do not stipulate the final time for application. The U.S. Department of Commerce didn't inform stakeholders of the procedural requirements involved, and announced that there was not enough time to consider the "market-oriented industry" test (a key and decisive issue). This violates the principles of justice and due process.
The Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts, China Furniture Association and China Government pointed out that the US Department of Commerce should consider the "market-oriented industry" test in the anti-dumping investigation. If the US International Trade Commission has made a final ruling on the damage and the US Department of Commerce has issued an anti-dumping duty order, the US Department of Commerce should review the situation and start the "market-oriented industry" test.
The plaintiff pointed out that it is reasonable for the US Department of Commerce not to start the "market-oriented industry" test. The main reasons are as follows: (1) The respondent applied for the "market-oriented industry" test at an inappropriate time; (2) Part 773 of the US Tariff Law restricts the use of market economy in non-market economy countries under very limited conditions. At the same time, the complainant pointed out that the respondent in China should know to submit all the data needed for the "market-oriented industry" test as soon as possible. There is no time limit for the procedure of the "market-oriented industry" test, which can only show that the discretion of the investigation organ is emphasized. The complainant also pointed out that the data submitted by the Furniture Branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Light Industrial Crafts, China Furniture Association and China Municipal Government did not meet the three standards of the "market-oriented industry" test.
In the final ruling of this case, the U.S. Department of Commerce also failed to give "market-oriented industry" treatment to China's responding enterprises. The U.S. Department of Commerce explained that considering the time requirement of the "market-oriented industry" test, the U.S. Department of Commerce did not consider the application for the "market-oriented industry" test of the responding enterprises in the anti-dumping investigation stage. But in this case, other procedures will continue to be considered. In fact, the practice of the United States is unfair to the responding enterprises in China. Because in China, the furniture industry is a typical competitive industry, and the vast majority of enterprises in the industry are foreign-funded enterprises and private enterprises. These enterprises independently produce, sell and price according to the laws of market economy, and the prices of all raw materials are determined by the market.
In short, exporters from non-market economy countries rarely apply for the treatment of "market-oriented industries" because of the strict testing standards for "market-oriented industries". Although in the 1990 US anti-dumping case against China, the US Department of Commerce admitted that the input price of production factors in China's chromium-plated nut industry was determined by market conditions in both the preliminary and final rulings, after the case was appealed to the US International Trade Commission, the US Department of Commerce revised the final ruling, thinking that China's chromium-plated nut industry is still controlled by the government, and only when all production factors in an industry are determined by market competition mechanism can it be regarded as a market-oriented industry.
(2) Separate tax rate
The inspection standard of "market-oriented industry" has been mentioned above. If the accused enterprise obtains the treatment of "market-oriented industry", it can calculate the normal value according to the sales price of the accused enterprise in the domestic market. Obtaining a separate tax rate can only prove that the enterprise is not controlled by the government in law and fact, but cannot prove that the enterprise operates under market conditions. Even if an enterprise obtains a separate tax rate, its domestic market sales price cannot be used as the basis for calculating normal value. Only the factor of production method can be used to calculate the structural price of the products involved, and the factor of production price must also be the price of the substitute country, unless the factor of production is imported from a market economy country and paid in the currency of a market economy country.
In the anti-dumping case against China's wooden bedroom furniture, the US Department of Commerce expanded the legal standards and factual standards as much as possible, and tightened the tax rate standards in an all-round way. By the end of 2004, 1 13 enterprises involved in the case had obtained the qualification of individual tax rate.
1. Comprehensively tighten the individual tax rate.
This case occurred during the period when the United States solicited opinions on the revised individual tax rate policy for non-market economy countries. On the one hand, the comprehensive tightening of individual tax rate in the United States reflects the voice of American enterprises, on the other hand, it also reflects the policy trend of individual tax rate in non-market economy countries.
(1) Business license information is insufficient.
Among the enterprises involved in this case that have not obtained the qualification of separate tax rate, the relevant information of business licenses of six enterprises is insufficient. The U.S. Department of Commerce pointed out in its analysis memorandum that the business licenses of these six companies did not expire, which is abnormal. At the same time, six companies did not prove that their business licenses were valid during the investigation period, which did not meet the statutory standards for determining separate tax rates. Therefore, the US Department of Commerce rejected the application for separate tax rates of these six companies. In fact, the business licenses of the six enterprises were issued before the investigation period of this case, and all of them had annual inspection seals, which in itself indicated that the business licenses were valid during the investigation period. However, the US Department of Commerce did not explain this real situation.
(2) The information of price negotiation is insufficient.
In this case, 1 1 the enterprises involved could not provide written evidence of price negotiation. The US Department of Commerce determined that these 1 1 enterprises could not prove that their pricing was not controlled by the China government. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Commerce rejected the application for separate tax rate of this 1 1 enterprise. In fact, most of the export sales of these 1 1 enterprises are completed by telephone or face-to-face interviews, and there is really no written evidence of price negotiation. According to Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, "the competent authorities shall give due consideration to any difficulties encountered by interested parties in providing the required information", which is actually inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the WTO.
(3) The submitted materials have not been translated into English or are unclear.
Due to the lack of English translation or unclear information provided, the US Department of Commerce rejected eight companies' applications for separate tax rates. Neither the legal standard nor the factual standard of individual tax rate stipulates the standards that must be met when submitting materials, and there is no precedent for the US Department of Commerce to refuse to apply for individual tax rate because the submitted materials are not translated in English or unclear. Although according to the anti-dumping law of the United States, the interested party fails to provide information or the information provided does not conform to the regulations, the Ministry of Commerce makes a ruling based on the best available information, but there is no precedent to follow. The US Department of Commerce rejected eight companies' applications for individual tax rates, reflecting the trend of tightening individual tax rates in the United States.
It can be seen that the U.S. Department of Commerce tried to find all available information and refused to apply for a separate tax rate for enterprises to respond in China, which is quite unfavorable for enterprises to respond in China in the future.
2. Respondent enterprises should correctly treat the individual tax rate in the United States.
In 2004, the United States proposed an amendment to the tax rate policy of non-market economy countries, which was characterized by comprehensively tightening the tax rate and soliciting opinions from the public twice. The United States anti-dumping case against wooden bedroom furniture in China happened under this background. Faced with the trend of tightening the tax rate in the United States and the voice of the American industry about rejecting the application for tax rate by responding enterprises, China enterprises actively responded to the lawsuit and kept insisting on applying for tax rate. In the preliminary ruling, 82 enterprises responding to the lawsuit obtained a separate tax rate, and those enterprises that did not obtain a separate tax rate kept submitting powerful facts and evidence. In the final ruling, another 2 1 enterprises were granted separate tax rates. It can be seen that as long as the responding enterprises actively respond to the lawsuit and provide strong evidence, the US Department of Commerce will still give separate tax rates to eligible enterprises. The following is an example, through the process of adjusting the tax rate specially by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and in this case, giving the responding enterprises a separate tax rate.
On June 18, 2004, the US Department of Commerce issued an announcement to make a preliminary anti-dumping ruling on wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. It is determined that the dumping margin of China furniture manufacturers/exporters is 4.90% ~ 198.08%. In the investigation of this case, China wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers/exporters who are not designated as responding enterprises can apply for separate tax rate qualification on a voluntary basis by filling in Volume A of the questionnaire. During this period, the US Department of Commerce * * * received 1 18 from China enterprises that their production and operation activities were not controlled by the government. After investigation and analysis, the US Department of Commerce ruled that the individual tax rate of 82 enterprises was 10.92%.
On July 30th, 2004, the US Department of Commerce announced that the preliminary anti-dumping results of wooden bedroom furniture originating in China would be revised. Modify the dumping margin of some responding enterprises in China; It was ruled that the 20 China enterprises that were levied general tax rate in the preliminary ruling of June, 2004 18 met the conditions of obtaining "separate tax rate", and their anti-dumping tax rate was changed from the original 198.08% to 10.92%.
On June 9th, 2004, 165438+ The US Department of Commerce made a final anti-dumping ruling on wooden bedroom furniture originating in China, and the anti-dumping duty of the enterprises involved was 2.22% ~ 198.08%. There are 1 13 enterprises with separate tax rates, and the anti-dumping tax rate is 8.64%.
On February 28th, 2004, 65438, the US Department of Commerce issued an announcement to revise the final anti-dumping result of wooden bedroom furniture originating in China. This includes modifying the dumping margin of some responding enterprises in China; The individual tax rate was revised from the original 10.92% to 6.65%, and the number of enterprises with individual tax rate was consistent with the final ruling of the US Department of Commerce on 10/3 in 2004.
After the US Department of Commerce revised the preliminary and final results, the number of China enterprises approved by the US Department of Commerce to obtain separate tax rates increased from 82 to 1 13. Although the US Department of Commerce has been tightening the standard of separate tax rate, as long as the enterprises involved actively respond to the lawsuit and provide sufficient evidence to prove that the enterprises are qualified for separate tax rate, they can obtain separate tax rate.
(3) Substitute country
When choosing a replacement country, the U.S. Department of Commerce determined that Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Philippine and China have the same level of economic development. According to the availability and credibility of data, the US Department of Commerce chose India as a substitute country.
On April 6th, 2004, 16, the responding enterprises in China submitted the substitute price data with Indonesia as a substitute country to the US Department of Commerce, and applied to the US Department of Commerce to reconsider whether India could be a substitute country. After evaluating the opinions and comments of all stakeholders, the US Department of Commerce decided that it was appropriate to select India as a surrogate country in the survey. The reasons are as follows: (1) Indian economic development is comparable to that of China; (2) India is the main producer of wooden bedroom furniture, and the furniture products produced by Indian manufacturers are comparable to those involved; (3) India provides the best conditions for using appropriate, open and accessible information to evaluate factors of production.
Respondents pointed out that in terms of production factors, there are more wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers in Indonesia than in India. In 2002-2003, the total output value of Indian furniture and its export volume to the United States, including wooden bedroom furniture and other furniture, were less than Indonesia's110. In addition, according to a report of the United States International Trade Commission, Indonesia's furniture industry mainly focuses on exporting wooden bedroom furniture, while India's furniture industry mainly focuses on commercial metal and folding furniture. The overall situation of Indonesian furniture industry and the operation of individual manufacturers are similar to those of China, but the situation in India is different. The substitution price of raw materials in Indonesia is far more accurate than the Indian import data used by the US Department of Commerce in the preliminary ruling. Some import data of India have nothing to do with furniture production, because there is no organized and significant furniture industry in India.
The complainant pointed out that according to the characteristics and scope of the investigation, it is appropriate for the US Department of Commerce to choose India as a surrogate country; It is necessary for the U.S. Department of Commerce to choose an alternative country to ensure that interested parties have enough time to choose an alternative price. At the same time, the relevant laws and regulations do not stipulate the special time to choose a substitute country. If the choice of alternative prices is complicated during the investigation, it is unfair to ask the complainant to provide alternative prices for more than 1 country, and it will also unduly increase the burden of the US Department of Commerce, and most of the enterprises forced to respond to the lawsuit have submitted alternative prices from India. Regarding whether India is an important producer of wooden bedroom furniture, the complaint policy points out that Indonesia is an important producer of wooden bedroom furniture, and the respondent ignores the legal standards for evaluating important manufacturers comparable to the products involved. The law does not require the U.S. Department of Commerce to examine whether the selected country is the most important country for exporting similar products to the United States when choosing a substitute country. Therefore, legally speaking, the number of similar products exported to the United States has nothing to do with the choice of substitute countries by the US Department of Commerce.
By the end of 2004, the United States initiated 1 10 anti-dumping investigation against China. Except for a few cases, there was no substitute country, and * * * chose 18 as the substitute country in 92 cases. Among them, India was selected as a substitute country for 62 cases, and Pakistan was selected as 6 cases; 5 in Thailand; 4 in Indonesia; 2 in Japan; Paraguay, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Malaysia, Argentina, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, France, the Philippines, Bolivia and South Africa each have 1. In American anti-dumping cases against China, about 70% of the cases choose India as a substitute country, mainly because India is similar to China in terms of economic system transition and per capita gross national product, so India has the greatest probability of being selected as a substitute country. But the selection of specific data is very unreasonable. In recent years, China's iron and steel enterprises responded to US anti-dumping cases, and the United States chose India as a substitute country. In the anti-dumping case of American hot-rolled coil in 2000, the United States chose India's Tata Steel Company instead of India's average index as the substitute price, which artificially raised the price of production factors of China iron and steel enterprises and distorted the production cost of China iron and steel enterprises. Because the pig iron cost of India's Tata Steel Company is very competitive in the world, it simply cannot represent the whole industrial profit level of India as a substitute country.
In short, the relevant laws and regulations of the United States give the United States Department of Commerce a lot of discretion in choosing a substitute country, so the United States Department of Commerce finally chose India as a substitute country.
Brief Analysis of Foreign Anti-dumping Cases of Potassium Permanganate against China (I)
[reposted from: China Trade Relief Information Network provided 280 clicks; Updated in July 2005-1; Article input: Shentong]
Reduce the font and increase the font.
Up to now, three countries (regions) have conducted anti-dumping investigations on potassium permanganate originating in China. 1983, the United States began an anti-dumping investigation on potassium permanganate originating in China. Up to now, * * * has conducted 10 annual administrative review, 1 new exporter review and 2 sunset reviews. 1986, the European union started an anti-dumping investigation on potassium permanganate originating in China.