EU Court of Justice Dismisses EBMA Appeal in Giant China’s Dumping Case
LUXEMBOURG – Earlier today the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal of the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) on the cancellation of Giant China’s dumping conviction. With this verdict, a long and costly legal battle comes to an end which started in August 2013, right after the European Commission decided to maintain the dumping measures with 48.5% anti-dumping duty to be levied on conventional bicycles imported from China.
On June 4, 2013, the outcome of the anti-dumping interim review on bicycles imported from China into the European Union was announced. What was striking in this announcement by the European Commission to maintain the dumping measures was that three Chinese companies were exempted from the 48.5% dumping duty: Zhejiang Baoguilai Vehicle Co. Ltd.: 19.2% duty; Oyama Bicycles (Taicang) Co. Ltd.: 0% duty and Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co., Ltd.: 0% duty. At that time it was said that these companies were exempted from the dumping conviction because they had in full cooperated in the investigation on dumping by the European Commission. Others, like Giant China refused to provide the necessary information as mentioned in the EU Directorate General Trade’s R546 General Disclosure Document.
In August 2013 Giant China appealed to the conclusions made by DG Trade 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 EBMA.’
EBMA appealed to this verdict. That appeal has now been dismissed.
‘Appeal dismissed in its entirety’
On why EBMA’s appeal has been dismissed, today’s verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union says (among other considerations “In the third place, as regards paragraphs 85 to 89 of the judgment under appeal, EBMA contends that it cannot be ruled out that the Giant nd Jinshan groups were related during the investigation period.
88 The General Court demonstrated, in paragraphs 85 to 89 of the judgment under appeal, that the information available to the EU institutions when adopting the regulation at issue was sufficient for it to be concluded that there was no risk of circumvention between the Giant and Jinshan groups.
89 In that regard, as the Advocate General observed in point 108 of his Opinion, although EBMA claims that a link between the Giant and Jinshan groups cannot be ruled out, it does not call into question the evidence set out in paragraphs 86 to 89 of the judgment under appeal, on which the General Court based its conclusion that there was no such link.
90 The Court must therefore reject the argument alleging that, contrary to the finding of the General Court, it cannot be ruled out that the Giant and Jinshan groups were related during the investigation period, as well as the third ground of appeal in its entirety, as unfounded.
91 In the light of the above considerations, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.”
Anti-dumping duty stayed in place
By the way, during the appeal period the 48.5% anti-dumping duty imposed on bikes made by Giant China and imported into the EU stayed in place. This means that since June 2013 Giant China’s export to Europe has been hampered by this dumping duty. What this means with regard to damage claims by Giant China, is unknown at this moment.
What is clear now is that Giant China can start exporting conventional bicycles to Europe without any dumping duties. However, on that import EU’s regular 14% import duty will be levied. Next to that the question is what will happen after the current dumping measures on bicycles imported from China are to expire on 6 June 2018.