EBMA Fights for Stricter Regulations on Circumvention
BRUSSELS, Belgium – On January 26 the EU High Court in Luxembourg placed verdicts in two appeal cases on the anti-circumvention by transshipment operations of the anti-dumping duties for China made bicycles exported to the member states of the European Union. One of the cases is now used by the European Bicycle Manufacturers’ Association (EBMA) to urge the European Commission for stricter circumvention regulations.
The January 26 verdict by EU High Court in Luxembourg rules that Chin Haur Indonesia has been involved in transshipment operations. Parties involved in this court case said that Chin Haur has been circumventing the 48.5% anti-dumping duty with completely knocked down bicycles it got from Fushida in China.
In a separate verdict the EU High Court in Luxembourg also rules that Sri Lankan City Cycle Industries has not been not engaged in circumventing the anti-dumping duties on China made bicycles which are exported to the EU via transshipment operations. On this appeal the High Court rules as ‘unfounded’.
Retroactively payments of anti-dumping duties
The High Court verdicts means that Chin Haur Indonesia will have to pay the anti-dumping duties on the bikes the company exports and has exported to the EU. Such payments must also take place retroactively.
According to EBMA European importers that source bicycles at Sri Lankan City Cycle Industries are at risk of a likewise verdict for anti-dumping payments. In particular as the manufacturers’ association is urging the European Commission to amend its circumvention regulations. And as this is merely a ‘flaw’ in the regulations, this could be easily and rapidly be introduced.
The European Bicycle Manufacturers’ Association explains, “EBMA heartily welcomes the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the Chin Haur and City Cycle cases. In those decisions, the Court has reaffirmed the principle that in cases where there is significant non-cooperation, circumvention can be established ‘on the basis of a body of consistent evidence’ showing the existence of circumvention. While the law involved in the two cases is the same, and the Court recognized the substantial evidence of Chin Haur’s circumvention activities, the Court’s affirmed the General Court’s decision in the City Cycle case simply because the Council Regulation did not ‘contain any individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged’. However, this flaw can be easily remedied by the EU institutions, simply by re-adopting the measures by means of adopting a new regulation which cites the evidence it has of City Cycle’s circumvention activities, and EBMA is now kindly asking the European Commission to do so on an expedited basis. The measures on City Cycles’ past and future exports might be applied also retroactively. We hope to see the new regulation adopted very shortly. The essential message is that circumvention of the antidumping is cheating, and EBMA does not stand by idly when PRC’s Exporters engage in cheating which puts at risk the survival of our EU Jobs & SMEs.”