US court ruling on tire duties hailed
Source: Xinhua |
October 12, 2010, Tuesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
CHINA has welcomed the final ruling by the United States Court of International Trade directing the US Department of Commerce to scrap its imposition of countervailing duties, or CVD, on tires from a Chinese manufacturer, China's Ministry of Commerce said yesterday.
The US court order on October 1, together with its two previous rulings, showed that the US Commerce Department's simultaneous imposition of CVD and anti-dumping duties, or AD, based on the Non-Market Economy methodology on China's Hebei Starbright Tyre Co was unlawful, according to a statement provided by the ministry's Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and Exports.
The US Commerce Department was also urged to correct its behavior on this issue.
China had maintained that the double use of these punitive duty measures infringed on US rules of not adopting anti-subsidy measures against non-market economies, a bureau official said.
It also went against the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and harmed the interests of Chinese enterprises, he added.
The US Commerce Department has yet to respond. The court gave it 60 days to decide on an appeal in the Court of Appeals. China will use the ruling to encourage domestic enterprises to use legal means to protect their legitimate rights and interests, the statement said.
The US Commerce Department decided on July 31, 2007, that it would launch AD and CVD probes simultaneously into China-made off-road tires. Further, it announced on September 4, 2008, that it would levy duties of 19.15 percent and another duty ranging from 2.45 percent to 14 percent on Chinese tires.
In 2008, Hebei Starbright sued the US Commerce Department in the Court of International Trade.
The CIT ruled on September 18, 2009, that the duties imposed by the Commerce Department on Hebei Starbright could cause double counting since "while the department may have the authority to apply the CVD law to products from a non-market economy-designated country, the CVD and NME AD statutes are unclear as to how the department is to account for the overlap between the statutes when imposing both CVD and AD duties on goods from a NME country."
In response to the department's appeal, the US court made its ruling on August 4 for the second time, which says that the department did not abide by the CIT's ruling in 2009.
The US court order on October 1, together with its two previous rulings, showed that the US Commerce Department's simultaneous imposition of CVD and anti-dumping duties, or AD, based on the Non-Market Economy methodology on China's Hebei Starbright Tyre Co was unlawful, according to a statement provided by the ministry's Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and Exports.
The US Commerce Department was also urged to correct its behavior on this issue.
China had maintained that the double use of these punitive duty measures infringed on US rules of not adopting anti-subsidy measures against non-market economies, a bureau official said.
It also went against the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and harmed the interests of Chinese enterprises, he added.
The US Commerce Department has yet to respond. The court gave it 60 days to decide on an appeal in the Court of Appeals. China will use the ruling to encourage domestic enterprises to use legal means to protect their legitimate rights and interests, the statement said.
The US Commerce Department decided on July 31, 2007, that it would launch AD and CVD probes simultaneously into China-made off-road tires. Further, it announced on September 4, 2008, that it would levy duties of 19.15 percent and another duty ranging from 2.45 percent to 14 percent on Chinese tires.
In 2008, Hebei Starbright sued the US Commerce Department in the Court of International Trade.
The CIT ruled on September 18, 2009, that the duties imposed by the Commerce Department on Hebei Starbright could cause double counting since "while the department may have the authority to apply the CVD law to products from a non-market economy-designated country, the CVD and NME AD statutes are unclear as to how the department is to account for the overlap between the statutes when imposing both CVD and AD duties on goods from a NME country."
In response to the department's appeal, the US court made its ruling on August 4 for the second time, which says that the department did not abide by the CIT's ruling in 2009.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
