European Commission: Revising Anti Dumping Results On China'S Leather Shoes And Boots

According to the European court decision, the European Commission has decided to reimpose 16.5% of the enterprises involved in the anti-dumping case of Chinese leather shoes and boots.

10% anti-dumping duties are levied on the enterprises involved in anti-dumping cases of Vietnamese leather shoes and boots.

Products involved in the EU CN (Combined Nomenclature) code are 64032000, ex 64033000, ex 64035111, ex 64035115, ex 640351 19, ex 64035191, ex 64035195, ex 64035199, 64035911 64035911, 64035931 64035931, 6403 6403 6403, 64035911, ex, and so on.

In July 2005, the European Union filed anti-dumping investigations against leather shoes and boots originating in China and Vietnam.

In October 5, 2006, the EU made a definitive final ruling on the case, and the final ruling ruled a 2 year period of 9.7% to 16.5% anti-dumping duties on the products involved.

In October 3, 2008, the EU came to China and Vietnam.

The anti-dumping investigation was made at sunset.

Including the Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd, the 5 companies involved in the case referred to the European Court of first instance (later renamed the EU General Court), and the General Court of the European Union made the first instance judgment in April March 2010.

The above plaintiffs will appeal to the European Court of appeal respectively, and the European Court of justice made the first two trial decisions in February 2, 2012 and November 15, 2012 respectively.

In October 2013, the European Commission released a new anti-dumping investigation procedure to examine whether the above 5 Chinese appeals enterprises met the statutory standards of market economy status.

In April 2014, the EU Council issued a Notice No. 2014/149/EU, which rejected the EU's proposal to impose anti-dumping duties on the 5 Chinese enterprises involved and terminated the relevant investigation procedures.

C& J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE and Timberland Europe BV filed the case against the national courts and the European Court in the case of the original anti-dumping measures. In February 4, 2016, the European Court ruled that the original trial final and the anti circumvention final did not examine the market economic status and the separate tax rate of the Chinese and Vietnamese enterprises involved.

Therefore, the European Commission decided to restart the anti-dumping investigation procedure.

In August 18, 2016, the European Commission issued the Announcement No. (EU) 2016/1395. According to the decision of the European Court of justice, it decided to impose a 16.5% anti-dumping duty on 13 Chinese enterprises involved in the anti-dumping case of China's leather shoes and shoes, including Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd and Buildyet Shoes Mfg..

In September 13, 2016, the European Commission issued the Announcement No. (EU) 2016/1647. According to the decision of the European Court of justice, it decided to impose a 10% anti-dumping duty on 14 Vietnamese enterprises involved in anti-dumping cases of Vietnamese leather shoes.

In September 28, 2016, the European Commission issued the Announcement No. (EU) 2016/1731. According to the decision of the European Court of justice, it decided to impose a 16.5% anti-dumping duty on the General Footwear Ltd, a Chinese enterprise involved in the anti-dumping case of China's leather shoes and boots, and to impose a 10% anti-dumping duty on Vietnam's leather shoes and shoes anti-dumping cases involving Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Ty.

The C&J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE and Timberland Europ involved in the case referred to the EU General Court for the legality of the above anti-dumping termination results.

In December 14th December 2016, the European Commission issued a Notice No. (EU) 2016/2257, which decided to impose a 16.5% anti-dumping duty on China's Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu, and Nanhai.

The case involved a total of 246 enterprises involved in China and Vietnam. Of these, 168 of them did not submit relevant information on market economic status and preferential tax treatment in the original investigation procedure. 20 of them had been independently examined or taken as affiliated companies of the company group in the original trial. 31 had been re examined and re imposed anti-dumping duties according to the court's decision. 19 of them were re imposed anti-dumping duties according to court decisions, and 5 were required to review their market economic status and separate tax treatment.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.