News Article

EU Court of Justice Cancels Giant China’s Dumping Conviction

Laws & Regulations

BRUSSELS, Belgium – On 26 November, 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the anti-dumping conviction of Giant China is cancelled. The EU has two months to appeal the judgment. It is only after the period of two moths will elapse, without the EU lodging an appeal, that the judgment will take effect and the anti-dumping duties imposed on Giant will need to be effectively terminated.

EU Court of Justice Cancels Giant China’s Dumping Conviction

When there’s no appeal on the judgement of the EU Court of Justice Giant China will be, next to Oyama and Ideal, the 3rd major bicycle producer in China that can export to the European Union at 0% anti-dumping duty. Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co. Ltd and Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co. Ltd are exempted from the June 5, 2013 Council Regulation that imposed a 48.5% anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China after an interim review.

Case T 425/13

In August 2013 Giant China appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It took to 26 November, 2015 for the appearance of the 12 page ‘Judgement of the General Court in Case T 425/13 between Giant (China) Co. Ltd, in Kunshan (China) and the Council of the European Union supported by the European Commission and by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA).’

Previously published on anti-dumping and Giant China

No cooperation from Giant China

Why Giant China wasn’t like Oyama and Ideal exempted from the anti-dumping duties in 2013 was because Giant China did not cooperated enough for the interim review. On this the Council Regulation of June 5, 2013 said, “The reply of one group, Giant China, was considered as being significantly deficient as it did not include all the required information on the structure of the group, notwithstanding the Commission’s efforts to obtain the necessary information from the group.”

Giant Phoenix

That information was about the set-up of a Giant joint venture with Jinshan, called Giant Phoenix. Giant argued that, apart from this joint venture, it had no other links with Jinshan and that, in any event, Giant Phoenix had ceased its activities in September 2011. Therefore, in the absence of any link between Giant and Jinshan, Giant was not obliged to provide the information requested by the EU institutions with regard to Jinshan nor did Giant have any such information.

The Court’s analysis

The Court focused its analysis on two main issues, namely, whether the information provided by Giant was sufficient for determining its individual dumping margin, and whether the imposition of an individual duty on Giant would have created a risk of circumvention.

First, the Court found that the EU institutions had the information necessary for calculating an individual dumping margin and thus establishing an individual anti-dumping duty for Giant. While the Court did not explicitly rule on the relationship between Giant and Jinshan, it did find that the information pertaining to Jinshan was not necessary to calculate an individual dumping margin for Giant.

Risk of circumvention

With respect to the risk of circumvention, the Court found that the information available to the EU institutions was sufficient to conclude that there was no risk of circumvention between Giant and Jinshan. On a more general level, the Court held that a hypothetical risk of circumvention cannot in itself justify the refusal to calculate an individual dumping margin. The Court also clarified that the mere fact that certain information, which is relevant for the assessment of the risk of circumvention, has been provided in a relatively advanced stage of the anti-dumping investigation, cannot be invoked to justify the refusal to take such information into account. In the present case, since the information concerning the final dissolution of Giant Phoenix was communicated by Giant almost 40 days before the adoption of the contested Regulation, the Court found that the EU institutions could and should have taken it into account in assessing the risk of circumvention.


As said, the EU has two months to appeal the judgment. This trade journal asked if EBMA already lodged an appeal or is about to do in the next weeks. So far we didn’t get a reply from the European trade block.

The Giant Group is the biggest bike maker in the world that targets a production of 7 million units of which 2.8 million in China. The company’s 2014 sales growth in both Europe and China pushed its consolidated full-year sales figure by 10.9% to TWD 60.22 billion (€ 1.67 billion); the highest turnover in the company’s history.

Comment on this article
Before commenting read our rules on posting a comment.