Last year, there were two cases worthy of attention in the foreign trade export of my country’s chemical fiber industry. One was the EU’s countervailing case against my country’s polyester staple fiber, and the other was Turkey’s anti-dumping case against my country’s polyester filament. The two cases were ultimately won due to the mutual cooperation and active response of relevant state departments, associations and enterprises involved.
In the EU’s countervailing case against my country’s polyester short fiber, the European Commission received a countervailing complaint from the European Man-Made Fibers Association, requesting to launch a countervailing investigation into my country’s polyester short fiber. If the countervailing investigation ultimately determines that there are subsidies and industrial damage, the investigation agency can decide to impose countervailing duties on my country’s exports of polyester short fiber to the EU. We believe that the complainant’s intention is to eliminate competitors and monopolize the market through trade remedy procedures permitted by the WTO. In order to protect the rights and interests of my country’s polyester staple fiber companies in the EU market, under the guidance of the Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce, the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles convened the companies involved in the case to coordinate responses to the lawsuit. After a year-long game between the two sides, the European Commission finally made the decision to cancel the anti-subsidy investigation after listening to the opinions of all parties and under the tremendous pressure from relevant stakeholders in my country and the EU opposing trade restrictions.
In Turkey’s anti-dumping case against my country’s polyester filament yarn, the Turkish Ministry of Economy launched an anti-dumping investigation into polyester synthetic filament yarn products originating in China, India and Malaysia. Under the mediation of the professional team of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles, the Turkish investigation authorities finally announced the final results of the polyester filament yarn ruling. The responding companies in my country received a tax rate of US$0.15 per kilogram, which is equivalent to a tax rate of about 10%. Companies that did not respond received a tax rate of US$0.17 per kilogram. According to the final ruling, 13 responding companies, including Fujian Baihong Poly Fiber Technology Industrial Co., Ltd., have received the same tax rate as Malaysian and Indian companies, which is conducive to the continued expansion of Chinese polyester filament companies in the Turkish market. stable export.
In both cases, relevant participants stated that active response was the key to the success of the case. Relevant people from the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles believe that the first thing many companies consider when facing investigations is the cost of responding to the lawsuit. Most companies eventually give up responding to the lawsuit due to the cost, and then lose the export market in 5 years or even longer. The Chamber of Commerce recommends that when companies face such trade remedy cases, they should decide whether to respond based on the importance of the target market. If the country is a main business market or a key development market, they should actively respond to the lawsuit. In Turkey’s anti-dumping case against my country’s polyester filament, the responding companies received a tax rate of US$0.15 per kilogram, while non-responding companies may be slapped with high tariffs and lose the Turkish market.
Gu Haifeng, the import and export business manager of Jiangsu Huaxi Village Co., Ltd., who participated in the EU’s anti-subsidy case against my country’s polyester staple fiber, said that cooperating with the companies involved in the case to actively respond is the most difficult part of all work. It is completely worthwhile to look back at the original response after the success, because it will be beneficial to the company’s overall business development in the EU in the future.
Industry insiders said that large companies dare to respond to lawsuits with their strong financial resources, while small companies often choose to give up after evaluating the risks and cost of responding to lawsuits. Large companies can relatively increase their market share after winning a lawsuit, which is also the motivation for large companies to respond to lawsuits.
Experts in the industry said that when facing a trade war, small businesses should not be afraid on the one hand and actively seek possible opportunities, such as discussing the possibility of cooperation with large companies; on the other hand, they can also “save the country through curves” and cooperate with local traders. Cooperate and try not to lose business in the trading area. In addition, emerging apparel exporting countries in Asia are currently growing rapidly. Countries such as Bangladesh and India import large quantities of Chinese raw materials out of demand for processing export trade, which has caused uneasiness in their existing domestic industries and launched trade remedy investigations against my country to compete for destination markets. possibility increases. The textile and apparel industry should pay more attention to and take precautions against this trend.
In addition, the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Textiles reminds enterprises in the industry that as the advantages of my country’s low-end products are gradually weakening, relevant enterprises can optimize and upgrade their products, abandon the strategy of low-price competition, and increase product development to improve their products. Competitiveness.
