anti dumping - Page 4 of 4 - LEVA-EULEVA-EU

Tag Archive: anti dumping

LEVA-EU participates in CCME Brussel’s press briefing
19/04/2018 16:09 Leave a Comment
On 18 April, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Imports and Exports of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) organized a press briefing in Brussels. CCCME reported on the meeting with the European Commission that took place earlier that day and explained the position of the Chinese E-bike industry in the dumping case.

LEVA-EU attended the press briefing on behalf of the Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles. A select group of high-level journalist, mainly representing general press such as Politico, M-Lex, the Financial Times, de Telegraaf, …, asked a lot of questions. On behalf of the trade press, Bike Europe’s Deputy Editor in Chief, Jack Oortwijn, was atteding too.

In the meantime, he has published an illuminating article on the Bike Europe website, see: http://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2018/4/striking-issues-surface-in-china-e-bike-dumping-case-10133622 In this article, he quite correctly concludes that the issue of the Chinese statistics is the key issue in this case. EBMA is building its complaint on Chinese statistics, which they keep confidential because they obtained them by paying a fee.

In the meantime, LEVA-EU has published a reaction on this on the Bike Europe website to further clarify the issue. The response is as follows:

“LEVA-EU was at the CCCME press briefing yesterday on behalf of the Collecitive of European Importers of Electric Bicycles. As a result, we would like to further clarify what was precisely said about Chinese export data. It is not quite correct that, as stated in the article, Chinese government regards the data as confidential. Under the Chinese 8 digit export code HS 87119010 (????? – diandongzixingche), there are general export statistics ????? – diandongzixingche, which means electric self-propelling vehicles. These statistics are not accurate to determine the export of electric bicycles, because they also include other electric self-propelling vehicles such as for instance monowheels, electric scooters, hoverboards, etc. Under the Chinese 10 digit export code HS 87119010, all details about the individual export transactions are available, such as name of exporter, type of product, export value, etc. It is this information under this 10 digit export code, which the Chinese government regards as confidential. There is nothing exceptional about this, Eurostat does not provide any commercial details on the general import statistics either.

The problem that the Collective is confronted with is that EBMA is building the whole case on statistics under this 10 digit export code. EBMA claims that they have been able to obtain these statistics against a fee. This allegedly has allowed them to sift the statistics and present Chinese exports of electric bicycles only. However, EBMA claim that they cannot disclose the identity of the information provider because “it would be of significant disadvantage to the party providing the data“. EBMA further states: “Disclosure of the source would manifestly and irresponsibly expose an unrelated third party service provider to potential economic retaliation because it has provided data to EU complainants in this significant anti-dumping investigation.” The Collective has on several occasions requested the Commission to disclose the identity of the provider because that it is the only way to allow the Collective to check the statistics on which the EBMA is basing the whole case. All this raises the question as to how this “unrelated third party service provider” was able to obtain and sell information, which is classified in China. And another key question is: why not just using Eurostat-statistics, since Eurostat is the official data supplier of the European Union.

Finally, in the article it is stated: ” there’s no cost difference between making e-bikes in China or in Europe”. This should be read as there is no difference in purchase price from assemblers in China or from Europe.”
Chinese E-Bike Industry representatives deny dumping allegations
15:50 Leave a Comment
Representatives from the China Chamber of Commerce for Imports and Exports of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) participated on 18 April in a hearing held by the European Commission on the on-going anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations of electric bicycles imported from China.

They presented the key elements of their defence:
- Chinese producers deny allegations of dumping and causing injury to the EU industry; The choice of Switzerland as analogue country is inappropriate and does not provide for a fair comparison for calculation of dumping: there are fundamental differences between China and Switzerland regarding the level of economic development, cost of production, and e-bike market segment (Switzerland mostly sells high-end e-bikes, which are not the focus of the Chinese exports);
- The imposition of duties would harm large parts the European industry which is dependent on imports of parts from China, as well as European consumers by reducing choice and driving prices up, impeding the development of clean mobility and efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the EU;
- Recent figures from the EU industry show that production and sales revenues from e-bikes have been constantly growing over the past years, making the existence of material injury highly implausible.
- The eligibility of some of the companies supporting the complaint is in doubt, as the “EU e-bikes industry” counts importers of the products under investigation
- Unlike other trade complaints, there is no overcapacity in China’s e-bike industry: export volumes are customised and based on the EU demand, while more than 95% of China’s e-bikes are sold to the domestic market.
The CCCME is also arguing against a Commission order of registration of imports which might come in the next weeks and would stifle demand and drive up prices for consumers.

Chen Huiqing, director of the legal service department of CCCME, said: “the potential imposition of tariffs would be detrimental to Chinese producers and EU consumers alike, and would deprive Europe of a sustainable e-mobility solution. We hope the European Commission will take this into account and come to a fair and reasonable decision.”

Song Bo, Director of the Information Department of China Bicycle Association, said: “China has a uniquely strong biking culture and in the past few years, the e-bike industry has been developing rapidly. Chinese companies gained the know-how and have been continuously improving their competitiveness in the international market. That should not be confused with dumping.”
Collective sends 2nd protest against registration to Commission
10/04/2018 10:35 Leave a Comment
The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles has sent a second, exhaustive position paper to the European Commission further objecting to the possible registration of imports. That registration has been requested by EBMA and, if granted by the European Commission, would allow for retroactive collection of anti-dumping duties. The Collective has reiterated and further detailed its arguments against the EBMA position.

EBMA continues to build on unverifiable, Chinese export data to establish the so-called stockpiling, that requires registration. As a result, EBMA claims huge increase of Chinese exports in December 2017, January and February 2018. EBMA has consistently asked the Commission to treat these Chinese statistics as confidential information, since they allegedly have paid a fee to obtain the numbers. The Collective asks the Commission to disclose the identity of the data provider, which will also allow the Collective to obtain and verify the data for a fee.

Improper assessment

However, the Chinese export statistics are not supported by Eurostat statistics. The Collective believes that this is due to the fact that the EBMA does not use the proper method for assessing the need for registration. Eurostat reports average monthly import volumes of around 68,670 units for the investigation period and an average of 59,200 in the three months following the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation. Even imports in January 2018, at 64,020 units, were lower than the average for the investigation period. So, the proper method for assessing the need for registration shows no surge in additional import volumes and/or stockpiling and therefore no need whatsoever for registration.

Stockpiling practically impossible

The Collective further argues that it is practically impossible for its members to stockpile in view of the way they work. They do not buy electric bikes off the shelf but have them tailor made, which involves very long lead-times, especially for the parts to come in. These parts are in very high demand, since they are not only used for e-bike production in China but just as well for the European production of e-bikes. Even if an importer would have responded immediately to the Notice of Initiation (Oct. 2017), bikes ordered then will only be delivered well into 2018.

Nevertheless, EBMA claims that there exists an almost two year history of dumping which somehow indicates that EU importers should have been aware that dumping was taking place. EBMA relies on “rumours” about a potential anti-dumping complaint in the trade press back in Autumn 2016 to support the existence of such knowledge. Conveniently, however, EBMA omits that it expressly scotched such rumours at the end of November 2016 when it responded to them saying: “There is not any current EBMA request, nor – in EBMA’s knowledge – any new investigation at the European Union Commission at present. The rapidly growing imports from China to the EU are being monitored through Eurostat.” (Bike Europe, 29/11/2016)

No (threat of) injury

Conspicuously, the EBMA does not address any of the analysis provided by the Collective in its previous submission showing the absence of injury to the EU industry. As an example, in the 2017 financial report, the Accell Group notes first that it is one of the largest, if not the largest EU producers of e-bikes, and therefore potentially the price leader, and then confirms robust growth in its e-bike sales in the EU. Overall, for the Accell Group, turnover for e-bikes increased by 90% over a period almost commensurate with the injury investigation period. The growth in turnover between 2016 and 2017 was 30%. These results clearly do not indicate any injury measured in terms of revenues for e-bikes for this Group. The Group also states that it recorded a further increase in its order intake for 2018. Since future order intake is a crucial element of assessing actual injury or a threat thereof, the fact that publicly available information indicates that one of the largest EU e-bike producers has a healthy order intake, points strongly to no such threat, contrary to the EBMA’s claims.

Importing EBMA-members

Finally, the Collective questions whether a significant number of EBMA’s members can actually be considered as part of the EU industry, because they themselves are significant importers of electric bicycles from China. It is relatively clear from the Commission’s non-confidential files that Prophete is a related importer for one of the sampled EU producers. Another EBMA-member, BH is part of the importers’ sample. As for Oxylane, it is part of Decathlon which, as reported by Bike Europe(16/01/2018), sells 60,000 to 70,000 electric bikes per year which are currently being produced in China.

Therefore, the Collective requests the Commission to carefully consider the impact of these activities. It also raises the question as to whether the sampled EU producers are actually part of a real EU manufacturing industry for e-bikes and to what extent EU enterprises have self-inflicted injury by engaging in these practices.

Damage to importers

The Collective is convinced that registration of imports will inflict further and disproportionate damage to EU importers. It would have an unjustified chilling effect with potential cancellation of deliveries, because EU importers cannot reasonably assess the risk involved in retroactive collection of duties at a completely unknown duty rate.

The European Commission has until 20^th April to decide on registration, which creates the possibility of retroactive collection. However, should registration be imposed, duties will only be collected on condition that the Commission decides for definitive dumping duties. That decision is still a long way off.

For the full text of the Collective’s submission and/or any further details, please contact Annick Roetynck, tel. +32 9 233 60 05, email leva-eu@telenet.be
LEVA-EU briefs members on anti-circumvention duties
29/03/2018 16:22 Leave a Comment
LEVA-EU has provided its members with a detailed briefing on anti-circumvention duties and electric bicycles. The economic importance for businesses in the European electric bike sector to have correct and full details on this issue at their disposal is not to be underestimated.

LEVA-EU will assist its members with further briefings on other essential electric business issues such as EN 15194, type-approval, the battery standard, etc. LEVA-EU is also in the process of preparing a list of FAQs.

Interested but not an LEVA-EU member yet? The full list of membership benefits is here http://vijaydemo.ml/join-leva-eu/ and here http://vijaydemo.ml/leva-eu-service-package/ or contact LEVA-EU manager, Annick Roetynck, email leva-eu@telenet.be.
欧盟针对中国产电动自行车的反倾销程序——时间表
20/03/2018 10:45 Leave a Comment
进口截止日期：
- 2018年4月20日：截止决定登记
- 2018年7月20日：截止决定征收临时关税
- 2018年10月20日：预期倾销案调查的最终决定
- 2019年1月20日：倾销案调查最终决定的截止日期
- 提起调查：2017年10月20日
- 完成调查:
  - 预期: 2018年10月20日左右
  - 绝对截止日期：2019年1月20日
- 征收临时倾销关税的截止日期：2018年7月20日
征收临时倾销关税有可能对此前不超过90天的关税追收。例如，如果临时关税于7月20日征收，则有可能追收自4月20日起所产生的关税。然而，只有登记了进口货物才可能进行追收。
- 欧盟目前决定是否进行进口登记，本决定的截止日期为4月20日。
如欲了解详情，请联系：

LEVA-欧盟经理
Annick Roetynck, Manager
Email leva-eu@telenet.be – 电话：+32 9 233 60 05

中文查询:
胡锴铁, Make it China CEO
UK Office/英国办公地址: +44 7598 024148 | +44 1179713344, dennis@makeitchina.com
China Office/中国合作公司（深圳）地址: +86 130 5515 1585 | +44 7598024148
欧盟对中国电动自行车发起反倾销调查欧洲轻型电动车协会（LEVA EU）开展活动情况汇总
10:41 Leave a Comment
（自2017年10月20日）
- 欧洲轻型电动车协会（LEVA EU）创立了欧洲电动车进口商组织。
- 试图说服欧洲的进口商都加入欧洲电动车进口商组织，并邀请中国企业对此进行支持。迄今为止，欧洲电动车进口商组织已由来自比利时、丹麦、法国、匈牙利、荷兰、西班牙、瑞典和英国等19家公司组成，同时得到了两家中国企业的支持，分别是八方和金华卓远实业有限公司。
- 签订LEVA-EU与欧洲电动车进口商组织进行合作，并由LEVA-EU来管理此组织，共同为欧洲电动车进口商组织积极抵抗外界不利因素。
- 已向欧盟委员会提交了向欧洲电动车进口商组织征询意见的要求，并已得到批准。这意味着在处理这个事件的关键问题上，欧盟委员会必须征求欧洲电动车进口商组织的意见，如进口登记、临时关税和可类别国家等。
- 聘请Squire Patton Boggs律师事务所的专业团队将为组织提供法律咨询。
- 帮助组织内被要求抽样的进口商完成调查问卷或实地查证。
- 以组织的名义提交针对倾销投诉的意见书。
- 以组织的名义建议重选类比的国家，如美国和墨西哥，而非和瑞士类比。
- 以组织的名义对EBMA要求所有进口商注册的举措做出回应。如果被批准，将允许重新追溯征收倾销税。
- 已与其他利益相关方进行联系，比如中国机电产品进出口协会、中国驻欧盟使团、G+、代表中国机电产品进出口协会的专业律师事务所代表和Giant（捷安特）的专业律师事务所代表。
- 开展公关活动，定期向欧洲贸易媒体发布关于欧洲电动车进口商组织的立场和行动的新闻稿。同时与新华社欧洲区办事处取得联系。
到目前为止，欧盟委员会尚未采取任何影响欧洲进口商和中国生产商的措施，如进口登记或征收临时反倾销关税。欧洲电动车进口商组织相信通过坚持不懈的努力就有机会赢得胜利，但需要更多欧洲进口商和中国制造商的加入和支持。

如欲了解详情，请联系：

LEVA-欧盟经理
Annick Roetynck, Manager
Email leva-eu@telenet.be – 电话：+32 9 233 60 05

中文查询:
胡锴铁, Make it China CEO
UK Office/英国办公地址: +44 7598 024148 | +44 1179713344, dennis@makeitchina.com
China Office/中国合作公司（深圳）地址: +86 130 5515 1585 | +44 7598024148
EU dumping case on e-bikes from China: rumours
01/03/2018 14:15 Leave a Comment
Have you heard on the grapevine that as of 20th April duties will have to be paid retroactively should definitive duties be imposed? These are the facts.

On 31st January, EBMA has submitted to the European Commission a request for registration of imports. On 22nd February, the Collective of Importers has requested the European Commission to reject EBMA’s request for registration. Further details are here: http://vijaydemo.ml/2018/02/22/collective-of-european-importers-of-electric-bicycles-asks-commission-to-reject-ebma-request-for-registration/

To date, the Commission has taken no decision in this matter. So there is no registration going on, no registration pending, we are still waiting for the Commission to take a decision on this issue. That decision will be published in writing.

This is where the rumour comes from. The ultimate date for the Commission to impose provisional duties is 20th July. If these provisional duties are followed by definitive duties, then the Commission has the right to collect the provisional duties with a maximum of 90 days prior to the imposition of provisional duties. This however is on condition that the Commission has decided to register the imports, which is not yet the case. Consequently, the Commission has until 20th April to impose registration, should they want to be able to use the full 90 days prior to imposition of provisional measures for retroactive collection.

You can read the facts up to now on this case, here http://vijaydemo.ml/2018/02/08/eu-dumping-case-on-e-bikes-from-china-the-facts-so-far/

The Collective finds it important to negate unfounded rumours because the case is already causing a great deal of unrest, upset and damage in the electric bicycle business. This should not be further fuelled by mere rumours.
Why LEVA-EU assists the Collective of European Importers in AD643
30/11/2017 15:26 Leave a Comment
The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles has requested LEVA-EU to assist them in their defence in AD643 against e-bikes from China. Upon careful consideration, LEVA-EU has decided to accept this task for the following reasons.

LEVA-EU is open to any party wanting to join in on the promotion of LEVs, including electric bicycles in Europe. LEVA-EU welcomes manufacturers, importers, exporters, distributors, dealers, … alike, provided they share LEVA-EU’s belief in LEVs and agree to work together to grow the market.

Having read the complaint, LEVA-EU has concluded that this initiative is not aimed at growing the market. It is an attempt to ensure a bigger piece of the market for some parties. For that purpose, the popular and currently well-used tactic of “us” against “them” is put in position. AD643 is meant to be read as a battle of European manufacturers against Chinese manufacturers. So, their assumption is: if you are European, you know which camp to support, because that is the camp that provides economic growth, jobs, etc. What’s more, they believe that as a European you should fight against the Chinese manufacturers. They believe their sole purpose is to kill off the European manufacturers, take all production to China and leave Europe with, yet another, economic and industrial wasteland.

Golden opportunity

LEVA-EU rather believes that there is a golden opportunity, which is far more real than the risks outlined by European manufacturers, but which unfortunately remains largely untapped.

Perhaps in 1993 the world was effectively still that simple. But today, 24 years later, the world has changed beyond imagination. The old demarcation separating “us” from “them” has become meaningless. European manufacturers are importing components from outside Europe on an unprecedented scale. Some are, in addition to their own assembly, also importing complete electric bicycles. Globalization and Internet have yielded so much more than just some opportunistic imports of crappy e-bikes. There are new entrepreneurs coming into the business, who are developing innovative and disruptive ideas and business models. They no longer abide by the traditional supply chains but work on principles, which are driven by developments and technologies based on new concepts such as mobility as a service. They shop around the world for components and assembly, whilst devising business models that include leasing, sharing, conventional sales which combine points of sales, Internet, home delivery, … They are flexible, open-minded and very aware that they are working with a golden opportunity in the framework of issues such as mobility, transport, air quality, public health, etc.

Wrong enemy

Companies that keep clinging to old industrial adages are missing out on this golden opportunity. They have a quality product that sells well, and the objective is to stretch this success to a maximum. However, today, the world is moving too fast for such conservatism.

With all due respect, Europe does not need any conferences on and initiatives about bringing production back to the old continent. Europe needs conferences and initiatives on R&D, on innovating business models, on how to push LEV uptake, on how to encourage/help start-ups, on how to cooperate with the scientific/academic world, on setting up alliances with cities and citizens’ organizations, … And should that result in the conclusion that it may be useful to start up production in Europe, fine. But not defying all economic reality by bringing back production just out of nostalgia.

Ironically, in trying to preserve their position, these companies attack the wrong enemy. Importers, overseas producers, new companies applying new business models, … they are not the enemy.

Growing the market

Whilst the European industry files anti-dumping complaints and works hard to keep existing measures in place, an ever growing peloton of cities in Europe limits, sometimes even pushes combustion engine vehicles out. Every congestion charge, every low emission zone, every SUMP is a gift to the LEV-business. New markets are being opened, for free, every day all over Europe. But instead of tapping on that ever growing potential, a dumping complaint is filed, which prevents all parties in the sector to work on that potential.

Dumping cases are so time-consuming that hardly any time is left to do the work that really needs doing. LEVA-EU is trying to do that: work for better technical regulations, ask for attention in policies relevant to LEVAs, in European subsidy programmes, work to inform companies on the rules and on the market, ….

Our ultimate objective is to prove how counter-productive it is to use trade defence instruments for purposes other than what they are really meant for. If LEVA-EU can achieve that by supporting companies going against this counterproductive initiative, then we improve chances to get the whole sector around the table and start a serious discussion about how to grow the market for all instead of making only some pieces of the cake bigger.

We are open for any exchange of views on this LEVA-position.

Annick Roetynck,
LEVA-EU Manager
EBMA files dumping complaint against import Chinese electric bicycles
02/10/2017 12:41 Leave a Comment
Source: EBMA

Moreno Fioravanti, Secretary General at the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) announced: “dumped Chinese e-bikes are flooding the EU market. European e-bikes are undercut and overwhelmed in their home market by heavily subsidised, illegally dumped Chinese e-bikes sold below their cost of production. Imports of e-bikes from China have been increasing quickly and have now exploded, with imports in the first seven months of 2017 already exceeding the entire 2016 import volume. Imports into the EU of e-bikes from China increased from virtually zero in 2010 to a level likely over 800,000 in 2017. Therefore, we have filed a complaint with the European Commission, calling for the registration of imports and urgent anti-dumping measures on e-bikes from China. The EBMA is also preparing an anti-subsidy complaint. We urge the European Commission to investigate the unfair trade practices of Chinese e-bike exporters as soon as possible.”

More than 430,000 Chinese e-bikes were dumped into the EU in 2016, representing 70% of all e-bikes imported from outside Europe. Chinese imports in 2016 showed a massive 40% volume growth compared to the previous year.

The full article is here: http://ebma-brussels.eu/2017/10/european-bicycle-manufacturers-association-files-eu-anti-dumping-complaint-to-stop-the-dumping-of-chinese-e-bikes/