In an increasingly complex international trade environment, frequent trade remedy investigations have brought many problems to Chinese textile and apparel export companies. In this regard, Chinese textile and garment enterprises have actively responded to this problem. At the same time, relying on the four-body linkage response mechanism, under the leadership of the Trade Remedy Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce and the organization of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles, Indiaviscose We have won complete victories in many cases, including anti-dumping investigations on fiber yarns, countervailing investigations on viscose yarns above 60 denier in India, and investigations on clothing safeguard measures in Peru.
In the past year, the number of trade remedy investigations encountered by China’s textile and apparel industry has shown a downward trend after reaching a historical peak in 2020 (the number of trade remedy cases in the textile and apparel industry in 2020 was 22). A total of 13 trade remedy investigations were encountered, a year-on-year decrease. 40%; the amount involved was US$2.085 billion, a year-on-year decrease of 23.6%. It was an investigation of anti-dumping, anti-circumvention and safeguard measures initiated by six countries: South Korea, India, Brazil, Turkey, Argentina, and Peru, involving polyester fully drawn yarn (FDY ), viscose staple fiber, PU leather, polyester yarn, polyurethane-impregnated textiles and other products. Among them, there were 4 new cases in the original trial (3 cases of anti-dumping and 1 case of safeguard measures), 7 cases of sunset review, and 2 cases of anti-circumvention.
Judging from past cases, the amount involved in textile and apparel trade remedy cases has amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In recent years, affected by the rise of trade protectionism and the COVID-19 epidemic, countries have strengthened their efforts to protect domestic industries, and trade remedy investigations have been intensified. In 2021, the four original cases involving China Textile and Apparel each involved hundreds of millions of dollars.
China is Turkey’s largest import source country. According to GTF data, from 2018 to 2020, Turkmenistan imported US$1.95 billion, US$1.94 billion and US$1.58 billion of textile and clothing products from China respectively, accounting for 24.1%, 25.6% and 23.5% of its total imports. In order to protect its domestic industry, Turkey continues to launch trade remedy investigations on Chinese textile and apparel products and frequently launches anti-circumvention investigations. So far, Turkey has launched a total of 54 trade remedy investigations against China, including 41 anti-dumping cases (including original and reexamination).
South Korea also pays more attention to the protection of domestic industries. Since the first anti-dumping investigation into Chinese elastic yarn (DTY) was launched in 2005, South Korea has launched a total of 6 trade remedy investigations into Chinese textiles and apparel, mainly from 2011 to 2014, and the amounts involved were relatively small (US$440,000 to US$4.4 million). , mainly targeting DTY and oriented polyester yarn (POY) products. After a lapse of seven years, in January 2021, South Korea launched an anti-dumping investigation into FDY imported from China, involving a total amount of US$460 million. On the basis of comprehensive enterprises’ willingness to respond to the lawsuit, the industry failed to organize an industry defense in this case, and five sample enterprises participated in the dumping defense independently. On January 6, 2022, the South Korean investigative authorities officially issued a final announcement and decided to impose anti-dumping duties for a period of five years.
How should companies respond to trade remedy investigations? In this regard, the Textile Chamber of Commerce believes that Chinese textile and apparel export companies can defend against dumping or subsidies (from the perspective of an individual company to prove that the export price of the product is not lower than its normal value before entering the target market) and the industry’s non-injury defense (from the perspective of the industry) Prove that there is no damage to the domestic industry of the country under investigation, or that there is no causal relationship between the imported products and the damage or threat of damage to the domestic industry, etc.) to respond to the lawsuit. Among them, companies that defend dumping individually will usually obtain separate tax rates.
While companies are actively responding, the Textile Chamber of Commerce has also provided precise services. By organizing companies to participate in non-harm defense on behalf of the interests of the entire industry, it strives to ensure the normal export of the industry. Last year, the Textile Chamber of Commerce organized a total of 6 case response coordination meetings, and successfully organized industry-free defense in 2 cases – the Brazilian polyester yarn anti-dumping investigation and the Peruvian clothing second safeguard measures case. Currently, these two cases are still under trial. Under the four-body linkage mechanism, all parties have actively cooperated. In 2020, the industry’s non-injury defense cases in 6 cases organized by the Textile Chamber of Commerce have successively released final rulings. Among them, 3 cases (Indian viscose fiber yarn anti-dumping case, India’s 60-denier and above case) The viscose yarn countervailing case and the first safeguard measures case for Peruvian clothing) were successfully won.
As an important part of the four-body linkage mechanism, the Textile Chamber of Commerce focuses on early warning of trade remedy cases and helps companies avoid export risks. After the investigation is filed, the Textile Chamber of Commerce will notify the company of the products involved in the case and the progress of the case as soon as possible, mobilize and organize the company to respond, submit defense opinions to the investigating agency after extensively understanding the industry and the export situation of the responding company, and participate in the investigation organized by the investigating agency. He stated his opposition to taxation at the hearing, contacted the other country’s business association, importers and downstream customers to form an alliance to jointly put pressure on the investigation agency, repeatedly resolved the adverse effects of bilateral trade friction cases in textiles, and safeguarded the company’s export operations. In addition, the Textile Chamber of Commerce also provides enterprises with daily legal services such as technical trade barrier services, information consultation, business training, legal and regulatory research, and foreign exchange early warning, and fully protects the interests of enterprises and maintains the development of the industry.
AAAfefgehfjgffjhggjgjyuy
