India'S Textile Trade With China Is Actively Protected

In November 19th, India made anti-dumping sunset review final orders for nylon filament yarn originating in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea.

China's dumping of nylon filament yarn in India was found to be 29%, and no Chinese enterprises should answer it.

Facing up and down

In November 19th, India made anti-dumping sunset review final orders for nylon filament yarn originating in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea.

In August 27, 2010, India, in response to the requirements of the India synthetic fiber industry association, launched an anti-dumping investigation on the nylon filament yarn originating in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea.

In November 19th, the General Administration of anti dumping and joint customs duties of India announced.

In the previous fact disclosure report, the India anti-dumping bureau still regards China as a non market economy country, and endorsed the practice of using structural prices to calculate the normal value of Chinese exports in the original trial.

Finally, the dumping margin of Chinese products was identified as 29%.

At the same time, the anti-dumping Bureau comprehensively considered the evidence materials such as raw material prices, labor costs, interest rates and sales expenses provided by the applicant, and concluded that dumping and damage could continue to exist after the end of the 5 year tax period.

Trade between China and India is complementary and competitive.

China, India, Vietnam and other countries are complementary and competitive in the foreign trade of textiles and garments.

In fact, in recent years, the share of textiles and clothing in the United States market in India, Vietnam and other countries has been increasing. These countries have been taking advantage of China's international market share while implementing trade protectionist measures to China's textile and clothing products and enterprises.

China and India are both countries with more anti-dumping investigations in the world.

The difference is that China is not only a country that has been more anti-dumping than other countries in the world, but also the most anti-dumping investigation by India.

In 1995 and 2010, 142 cases of anti-dumping final trials were launched against India HUAFA, accounting for 17.67% of the global anti-dumping cases against China.

Especially after the outbreak of the financial crisis, the vast majority of trade protectionism cases targeting Chinese spinning and clothing products were launched by India.

It has a bad influence on China's reputation and market share in the international market.

There are two characteristics of India's trade protection measures for Chinese spinning and clothing products:

First, China's trade protection measures are relatively unitary, and anti-dumping is the main means and form.

At present, China's export products suffer from trade protection measures such as anti-dumping, countervailing measures, safeguard measures and special safeguard measures, technical trade measures, intellectual property rights protection measures and import prohibitions.

Compared with developed economies such as Europe and the United States, anti-dumping is the most important means and form of India's trade protection measures against China.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, India has launched 29 anti-dumping cases against China, accounting for 22.48% of the total number of Chinese textile products.

Special safeguard measures initiated 2 investigations into acrylic and nylon cord fabrics in 2010 alone.

Two, the range of products is mainly chemical fiber materials and industrial products, a small number of fabrics.

Nylon filament, viscose filament, viscose staple fiber, acrylic fiber, nylon cord fabric, linen fabric, silk fabric and so on are the most involved products.

Pick up legal weapons and actively respond

As one of the policy trade protective measures (anti-dumping, countervailing and special safeguard measures), anti-dumping is restricting the entry of other countries into the market and threatening their related industries in the form and means of law.

For some countries in order to protect the interests of their own enterprises and ignore the trade protection measures adopted by international trade rules, we must take corresponding measures to resolutely fight back.

Whether the Chinese enterprises actively respond to the lawsuit and the result of the lawsuit will have demonstrative effects on other countries.

In the face of the following protectionist measures, how can we avoid double counter investigation and how to deal with it? For textile and garment export enterprises, it is the only way to solve it by facing bravely and responding positively.

Unfortunately, the anti-dumping case of nylon filament yarn mentioned in this article has no Chinese enterprises to reply.

In this regard, China's textile and garment enterprises have quite successful cases.

For example, the 2010 Yao Ming ribbon double counter case.

In February 2010, the US Department of Commerce announced the preliminary results of the "double anti" investigation of China's narrow ribbon weaving anti-dumping countervailing measures.

There are 15 involved enterprises in China.

Among them, Yao Ming ribbon as a "double anti" mandatory respondent enterprises actively participate in the respondent, was finally judged to be dumping margin of 0, another mandatory respondent enterprises because of not responding, was sentenced to 231.40% punitive tax rate.

13 enterprises with an average tax rate were awarded a 115.70% tax rate.

Because of the insistence of Yao Ming's weaving belt, he finally got the "double anti" zero tax rate.

For example, in November 4, 2011, the US Department of Commerce issued the final result of the third administrative review of anti-dumping cases on polyester staple fibres in China. After 6 years of arduous and unremitting efforts, Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. has received zero tax rates for three consecutive administrative reviews.

According to the provisions of the US Department of Commerce, if an enterprise participates in administrative review three times in a row, it will get zero tax rate, and the anti-dumping administrative order against the company will be cancelled.

Successful cases bring us inspiration.

When Chinese enterprises are subjected to the trade protection measures from the international market, only by uniting and taking the weapons of the law and resolutely responding, is the only way out of the predicament.

Giving up litigation means giving up the market.