On May 4, 2022, the European Union General Court made a first instance ruling on the case of China Rubber Industry Association and China Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Minerals and Chemicals, representing more than 20 Chinese exporters, suing the European Commission for dual anti-dumping measures against Huaka passenger car tires. The ruling annulled the anti-dumping and countervailing measures against the Chinese enterprises prosecuted, and the European Commission and its supporting parties shall bear the litigation costs. Currently, the European Commission and others still have 60 days to decide whether to appeal the judgment. If the European Commission waives the appeal after two months, the ruling will take effect, and the importer who sues the enterprise has the right to apply for the refund of the tax already paid.
In this case, Jincheng Tongda & Neal Law Firm has represented the China Rubber Industry Association and the China Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Minerals and Chemicals throughout the litigation. The lead counsels are Xin FU and Chen YANG, and the team members include Li Yue and Wang Di.
Case Description:
In October and November 2018, the European Commission announced the final ruling on anti-dumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tyres in the EU (the "final double anti-dumping ruling"), which determined that double anti-duties ranging from €42.73 to €61.76 per truck and bus tyre imported from China would be imposed. From the end of 2018 to the beginning of 2019, the Association and the legal team discussed several times how to assist Chinese enterprises to return to the EU market in spite of the high duty rate. After argumentation, the lawyer team believed that there were many legal errors in the final decision of the double anti-dumping, and that the legal defense work at the original trial stage was comprehensive and well-documented, and had the legal and factual basis to file an appeal, and suggested that the business association represent the enterprises to bring the case to the EU court. After consulting with the enterprises involved in the case, the Association decided to adopt the advice of the lawyers' team and decided to file a class action lawsuit in the General Court of the EU on behalf of the tyre exporting enterprises willing to participate in the litigation, demanding the withdrawal of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures against the Chinese prosecution enterprises.
Lawyers work:
On 15 January 2019 and 6 February 2019, the lawyers' team submitted the final anti-dumping indictment and the final countervailing indictment respectively to the General Court of the EU on behalf of the merchants' association, pointing out a number of factual findings and errors in the application of law in the EC's final double anti-dumping decision and requesting the General Court of the EU to revoke the double anti-dumping measures. Afterwards, the lawyers' team conducted several rounds of intense pleadings with the EC on behalf of business associations and enterprises. In May 2021, the General Court of the European Union issued a notice of hearing, setting a date for the hearing on 9 July. Around 9 July, the business association and the legal team discussed the claims and determined the trial plan. On 4 May 2022, the General Court of the European Union published its first instance decision, which upheld our core claims and rejected the EC's wrongful practices and claims, rejected the EC's alternative claim for partial revocation of the measures, and finally ruled that the EC's double countermeasures against China's truck tyres were revoked in their entirety, with the effect of revocation covering The final judgement revoked the EC's double countermeasures against China's truck and bus tyres.
Impact of the case:
1. The General Court of the EU in this case fully affirmed the eligibility of eligible industry organisations as well as enterprises as plaintiffs' parties, providing new ideas for industries and enterprises to respond to foreign trade remedy investigations, and when the outcome of the enterprises' response to the lawsuit is unsatisfactory, the final decision of the investigation by the industry and/or enterprises to the court can also be used as a medium and long-term relief solution to oppose unfair trade remedy measures through judicial remedies and to recover for the enterprises overseas markets.
2. The General Court of the EU fully respects the independent and equal right of defence enjoyed by industry organisations in representing enterprises in double anti-damage investigations, and in future cases, industry organisations can make full use of this right to argue for the legitimate rights of Chinese enterprises
3. The General Court of the European Union has also comprehensively rejected several unfair calculation methods of the European Commission. If Chinese enterprises encounter similar practices in the future in response to EU double anti-countermeasures cases, the industry and enterprises can directly invoke this case to request the EC to correct the wrong practices and reduce the level of measures in the investigation process.
4. For the tyre enterprises themselves, if the EC does not appeal, and the successful judgment takes effect, the enterprises involved in the litigation can return to the EU market, and their importers can apply for the return of the double anti-duty paid. Moreover, the proceedings in this case have to a certain extent ensured that "whoever participates will benefit", reflecting a certain degree of fairness, which has sounded a warning bell to some enterprises who want to ride on the "windfall" and should make every effort to respond positively when they encounter various unfair trade remedy investigations. The company should be fully committed and proactive in dealing with unfair trade remedy investigations.
阅读原文