The hottest Shenzhen actively responded to the ant

2022-09-22
  • Detail

Shenzhen actively responded to the U.S. anti-dumping lawsuit and finally won "zero tax rate"

the U.S. Department of Commerce recently made a final ruling on the anti-dumping investigation of retail shopping bags. The ruling results of whether to respond to the lawsuit and the level of response to the lawsuit are very different. Shenzhen Henglong plastic products Co., Ltd. persevered and fully responded, and finally won the "zero tax rate" of anti-dumping

"We learned from Guangdong Oriental Jinyuan law firm that on June 10, U.S. time, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a final ruling on the anti-dumping investigation of polyethylene retail shopping bags from China, Malaysia and Thailand. The U.S. Department of Commerce believed that exporters and producers from these countries sold polyethylene retail shopping bags in the United States at a price lower than normal value, and ruled that the dumping margin was 0.20% to 77.33% Among them, the tax rates of 7 enterprises subject to compulsory investigation ranged from 0.20% to 41.21%. The weighted average tax rate of enterprises responding to the lawsuit is 23.06%, and the tax rate of other enterprises not responding to the lawsuit is 77.33%

according to Jin Yan, an anti-dumping expert of Dongfang Jinyuan law firm, Shenzhen Henglong plastic products Co., Ltd., which actively responded to the lawsuit, obtained the lowest tax rate of 0.20%. According to WTO regulations, when the dumping margin of imported products is less than 2%, anti-dumping requirements shall not be raised, that is, the U.S. Customs will not levy dumping duties less than 2%, and Hang Lung has obtained "zero tax rate"

it is understood that the anti-dumping case began on June 20, 2003, when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) accepted the application of the polyethylene retail shopping bag industry association of the United States and its five company members to file an anti-dumping investigation on polyethylene shopping bags imported from China, Malaysia and Thailand. A total of 37 Chinese enterprises were included in the anti-dumping investigation, including 5 in Shenzhen. At the same time, 9 enterprises were selected as compulsory investigation enterprises, but 2 enterprises were forcibly adjusted to measure the coefficient of material rigidity and lost the qualification to respond to the lawsuit. This is the largest number of companies that the U.S. Department of Commerce has ever chosen to conduct mandatory investigations. ITC sent out a questionnaire on July 14th, 2003. Unfortunately, only a few manufacturers responded. On August 1, the US sent a questionnaire to the Chinese companies that did not respond, but they did not receive a reply. Since then, ITC and the U.S. Department of Commerce have made positive preliminary determinations, determining that China's shopping bags are suspected of posing a substantial threat of damage to U.S. related industries and need to pay high punitive tariffs

in this context, some Chinese enterprises still do not recognize its harmfulness and are still not active in responding to the lawsuit. They believe that as long as their goods are not exported to the United States, it is not necessary to participate in responding to the lawsuit. Jin Yan said that this is quite disadvantageous to the whole industry, because once the anti-dumping is finally established, the European Union and others may follow, and the final damage is the whole domestic DuPont high-performance materials division announcing the product price adjustment shopping bag production industry

According to Jin Yan, Shenzhen enterprises' awareness of anti-dumping and their level of response to the lawsuit have improved rapidly. Hang Lung and Shenzhen Shili plastic products Co., Ltd. obtained low tax rates of 0.12% and 4.45% respectively in the preliminary determination stage, laying the foundation for Hang Lung to finally win the "zero tax rate" of anti-dumping. However, in contrast with Shenzhen enterprises, Taiquan (Dongguan) and Xinda (Quanzhou) got completely different results and lost their qualification to respond to the lawsuit. Taiquan was disqualified from responding to the lawsuit due to the wrong choice of broker lawyers; Xinda's lawyer blindly guided it to submit data, which eventually led to the company losing confidence in responding to the verification of the U.S. Department of Commerce and giving up halfway

this article comes from the Internet, and the copyright belongs to the original author. It is only for everyone to share and learn. If the author believes that infringement is involved, please contact us at the moment when he steps down the gangway, and we will delete it immediately after verification

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI