The "Chinese Shoe" Anti-Dumping Case Goes To The European Union High Court At The End Of 4.

Chinese enterprises subjected to unfair treatment of anti-dumping should actively respond to lawsuits, seek legal relief measures, and solve problems in the framework of law.

Recently,

Wang Hailong introduced the anti-dumping trade measures taken by Europe and the United States on leather shoes exported to China in 2006, and 5 Chinese shoe companies such as AOKANG thought that the European Commission had violated the law in the course of the investigation and filed judicial review in the first instance court of the European Union in December of that year.

In March 2010, 4 years later, the European Court of first instance rejected the suit of 5 Chinese shoe companies.

In the afternoon of the daily economic news reporter, Pu Ling dust, the lawyer of Beijing Zhong Lun law, who was the agent of this case, revealed that at present, only one AOKANG filed an appeal, and the other enterprises did not follow the action.

Because it is the last legal process, "although there is still a possibility of rejection, at least the countries that take anti-dumping measures can see that the awareness of Chinese enterprises to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests is enhanced and will have a positive impact on the protection of the interests of Chinese enterprises."

Pu Lingchen said.

The EU launched an anti-dumping investigation on leather shoes in 2006 and decided to impose a 16.5% anti-dumping duty for two years in October 5th of the same year.

At the end of 2009, the EU decided to continue to levy anti-dumping duties for 15 months.

Wang Hailong said that they felt that the attitude of EU members in dealing with anti-dumping cases was different, and the relationship between them was more complicated.

According to their understanding, in the anti-dumping case of leather shoes, most member states oppose the implementation of anti-dumping measures. "Only the old shoe makers in Spain and Italy feel that the export of Chinese leather shoes is a threat to them, so they raise anti-dumping suits against Chinese leather shoes."

Wang Hailong told reporters that before the EU did not levy anti-dumping duties in 2006, AOKANG's export business increased every year at the rate of 20%~30%.

After the EU imposed anti-dumping duties on China's export shoes, the company's export business has not increased, and it can only keep the old orders every year.

Later, only part of the export market was opened up in North America and Canada.

Pu Ling said that Chinese enterprises subjected to unfair treatment of anti-dumping should actively respond to legal relief measures and solve problems in the framework of the law.

Pu Lingchen believes that regardless of whether the final appeal will be rejected, the appeal will at least allow countries to take anti-dumping measures to see that China's corporate legal awareness is growing.

On the positive side, this will help to reduce the probability of anti-dumping measures taken by importing countries over time.

Wang Hailong told reporters.

Wang Hailong revealed, though

In order to adapt to the impact of anti-dumping, Wang Hailong revealed that AOKANG will shift to the central region in the future, so as to have more room for reducing manufacturing costs.

In addition, in order to avoid the passive situation brought about by anti-dumping, some Chinese shoe enterprises have increased their own brand's efforts in addition to adjusting their product structure and industrial layout.