The EU General Court revoke China TBR "double reverse" tax
The EU General Court rules in favor of China: revoke the "double reverse" tax order for TBR Tire
On May 4, the EU General Court made a first-instance ruling: the European Commission's anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders on China truck and bus tires were revoked, and the European Commission and its supporting parties should bear the litigation costs.
The person in charge of the China Rubber Association said that at the moment when the atmosphere of trade protectionism is strong, Chinese tires have encountered various unfair trade remedy investigations around the world. European market.
cause of action
The plaintiffs, the China Rubber Industry Association and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Minmetals and Chemicals, requested the General Court of the European Union to revoke the case of the European Commission's implementation of the "double-anti" tax order on China's truck and bus tires.
The accusers are more than 20 Chinese companies including Zhongce, Triangle, Aeolus Linglong, Double Coin, Chaoyang Long March, Double Star, Guilun, Sailun, Wanda Boto, Prinx Chengshan, Wanli, GM, Hankook, Giti, etc. Common representative of the exporter enterprise.
In this case, Beijing Jincheng Tongda Law Firm and its EU partner law firm (also referred to as the "lawyer team") represented China Rubber Association, China Minmetals Chamber of Commerce and Chinese enterprises throughout the litigation.
The first instance victory in this case is of great significance, which is reflected in two aspects:
On the one hand, for Chinese tire companies, if the European Commission does not appeal, the judgment in favor of the case will take effect, the participating companies can return to the EU market, and their importers can get back the "double-anti" tax that has been paid.
On the other hand, this case also provides new ideas for companies to deal with foreign trade remedy investigations. That is, when an enterprise responds to an unsatisfactory result, suing the final result of the investigation to the court can also be used as a relief plan to oppose the unfair trade remedy measures through judicial relief, so as to restore the overseas market for the enterprise.
From October to November 2018, the European Commission announced the final ruling on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy of EU truck and bus tires (referred to as the "double-anti" final ruling). Double anti" tax.
Although the tax rate has been reduced compared to the preliminary ruling, the high "double reverse" tax still seriously hinders the continued export of Chinese truck and bus tires to the EU market. From the end of 2018 to the beginning of 2019, considering the importance of the EU market to our tire companies, China Rubber Association has discussed with the lawyer team how to assist Chinese companies to return to the EU market in the case of high tax rates.
According to the work report provided by the lawyer team, China Rubber Association believes that there are many legal errors in the final ruling of “Double Anti-Revolution”. The legal defense work in the original trial stage is solid and comprehensive, and the reasons and evidence for the appeal are sufficient. It should consider bringing this case to the European Court of Justice.
After soliciting the opinions of the tire exporters involved in the case that decided to participate in the lawsuit, China Rubber Association and the China Minmetals Chamber of Commerce were jointly nominated as the representatives of the plaintiffs to file a class action in the EU General Court, requesting the revocation of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders against the Chinese companies suing.
On January 15 and February 6, 2019, China Rubber Association, on behalf of the enterprise, submitted an anti-dumping final indictment and a countervailing final indictment to the EU General Court respectively, pointing out that the European Commission has in the "double-anti" final ruling. Several facts were found and the law was wrongly applied, and the General Court of the European Union was requested to revoke the "double reverse" tax order. After that, China Rubber Association had several rounds of intense written exchanges with the European Commission on behalf of the enterprise.
After careful preparation, at the end of 2019, China Rubber Association submitted an application to the EU General Court, requesting a trial on this case and presenting its appeal in court. From the beginning of 2020 to the beginning of 2021, due to the epidemic, the procedure of this case has been suspended.
In May 2021, the General Court of the European Union sent a letter to the China Rubber Association, setting the trial date as July 9. Around July 9, around the list of issues before the trial and the focus of the trial, China Rubber Association and the lawyer team discussed the litigation claims and determined the trial plan. During the trial, the team of lawyers argued on the grounds that they requested the General Court of the European Union to revoke the "double reverse" tax order.
On May 4, 2022, the General Court of the European Union announced the first-instance ruling, which supported the core claims of the China Rubber Association and rejected the European Commission’s wrong approach, rejected the European Commission’s request for partial revocation of the tax order, and finally ruled to completely revoke the European Commission. The Commission's "double-reverse" tax order on China's truck and bus tires, the revocation effect covers the company that filed the lawsuit.
According to the relevant law, the European Commission still has two months to decide whether to appeal the judgment.
If the European Commission abandons the appeal after two months, the ruling will officially take effect, and the "double anti" tax paid by the importer who sued the company will be refunded in full.