20日，中國駐世界貿(mào)易組織(WTO)代表團(tuán)正式要求世貿(mào)設(shè)立專家組，調(diào)查并裁決歐盟對中國進(jìn)口皮鞋征收反傾銷稅是否違反國際貿(mào)易規(guī)則。國內(nèi)鞋企告知本報，將在5月4日做出是否向歐盟高級法院進(jìn)行上訴的決定。

China: initiating dispute settlement procedures

At the WTO dispute settlement body meeting held on the 20 day, the Chinese Delegation pointed out that the anti-dumping measures adopted by the EU on Chinese leather shoes violated WTO related agreements, both in terms of procedure and in nature, and undermines China's legitimate rights and interests.

In view of the fact that the latest round of consultations held in March 31st could not relieve China's concerns and find satisfactory solutions, China requested the WTO dispute settlement body to set up an expert group to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the Chinese side were protected.

China appealed to the WTO in February 4th on the EU anti-dumping case against China's leather shoes, and the two sides held a two-day bilateral consultation on the case for 60 days.

In accordance with the WTO dispute settlement procedure, the prosecution has the right to request the establishment of an expert group to investigate and decide on disputes in the absence of consultations.

Shoe companies: they will decide whether to appeal.

In addition to the Chinese government, Chinese footwear companies filed a lawsuit against the European Court of first instance in 2006 on anti-dumping duties, demanding the abolition of anti-dumping duties, on the grounds that the Commission's cost analysis of footwear products of Chinese enterprises is not accurate.

But the lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year.

AOKANG group, a domestic shoe company involved in the lawsuit, told reporters yesterday that lawyers are analyzing the evidence of the European court decision and will decide in May 4th whether to appeal to the high court of the European Union.

Wang Hailong, who is in charge of dumping duties on AOKANG group, told our reporter that EU anti-dumping measures violated trade fairness.

The price of leather shoes exported to Europe by domestic enterprises is higher than that exported to Brazil.

Wang Hailong said Spain, Italy and other footwear enterprises mostly use manual workshop mode, and it is difficult to compete with Chinese manufacturers. The EU anti-dumping measures are more a politicization decision to protect backward industries and employment.

It needs to be pointed out that the European Commission's action to protect shoe companies has been opposed by many European consumers and businesses.

representative

Although the EU increased tariff revenue by 10 euros, imported leather shoes from other developing countries soon replaced the gap between China and Vietnam, and the positions of European shoe manufacturers failed to be protected.

According to the footwear industry, the EU anti-dumping measures mainly affect shoe manufacturers in Fujian, Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. The export of EU leather shoes to Hebei enterprises has not yet been formed, so the impact is very small.

Related links

The "shoe" dispute has a long history.

Sino European trade disputes and disputes over China's footwear products have existed for a long time.

Since 2001, Russia, Italy, Spain and other countries have begun to detain and burn Chinese leather shoes. Local manufacturers believe that the influx of Chinese leather shoes has affected their survival.

In July 2005, the European Union announced anti-dumping investigations on some leather shoes originating in China and Vietnam.

In October 2006, the European Commission announced a two-year anti-dumping duty on leather shoes and children's shoes exported to the EU, with a tax rate ranging from 9.7% to 16.5%.

This tax rate has prompted the price of Chinese leather shoes, which sells for 50 euros (import price of about 9 euros), will rise by 1.5 euros.

In December 22, 2009, the EU decided once again to extend the anti-dumping duty on leather shoes in China and Vietnam for another 15 months.

In February 4th this year, the Chinese government launched the WTO dispute settlement process, but bilateral consultations failed to make progress.