Chinese Shoe Companies Must Be Armed With The Law To Prevent Them From Happening.

Recently, Zhejiang AOKANG

The Limited by Share Ltd received the verdict issued by the high court of the European Union, and finally ruled that the court of first instance of the European Union in the trial of AOKANG's defense against EU anti-dumping cases, the use of improper legal provisions was not fair, and the final judgment was that China AOKANG won the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which lasted for 6 years, finally won, which provided a useful reference for Chinese enterprises to actively cope with international trade barriers.

AOKANG and other shoe enterprises actively respond to EU anti-dumping

In 2005, following the lifting of the quota restrictions imposed on China's leather shoes for 14 years, the European Commission, in view of China's accession to the WTO organization, has re adjusted its strategy to initiate anti-dumping investigations on Chinese leather shoes.

In October 7, 2006, the European Union formally imposed anti-dumping measures on China's footwear industry for two years, levying a high anti-dumping duty of 16.5%, and involving more than 1200 enterprises in China.

In the face of the European Union's anti-dumping stick, in October 23rd of the same year, AOKANG joined 4 shoe companies, including Tamar and golden shoe, to file a lawsuit against the European Court of first instance.

However, the rise of Chinese shoe companies and the plea and defense did not stop the EU's anti-dumping stick falling.

The anti-dumping measure expired in October 2008, but the European Commission decided to launch a "full review" of the anti-dumping case against Chinese leather shoes.

In December 2009, the EU decided to reconsider the anti-dumping measures against Chinese leather shoes for another 15 months without sufficient justification, that is, to March 31, 2011.

In March 2010,

The court dismissed AOKANG's 5 Chinese shoe companies' lawsuit claims, and announced that China's shoe companies failed in the first instance.

In April 8, 2010, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce appealed to the WTO, requesting WTO to set up an expert group to coordinate the settlement of the unfair international trade dispute launched by the European Union.

Under heavy pressure, 4 shoe companies, such as TIMA and golden shoe, withdrew from litigation.

In the face of this grim situation, AOKANG resolutely decided to "fight down" and continue appealing to the high court of the European Union.

In March 31, 2011, the anti-dumping measures expired for 15 months expired. The European Union announced that it had abolished 16.5% of the high anti-dumping duty on Chinese leather shoes from April 1st of that year.

Thus, the unreasonable trade protection measures that have been maintained for nearly 5 years have finally come to an end.

However, this is only a unilateral lawsuit by the European Union to terminate the sanctions, but it has not yet concluded the legal case against dumping.

After AOKANG's active efforts, the EU high court finally issued a judgment in November 15, 2012, and the final award was AOKANG.

Chinese enterprises should increase the weight of competition

According to legal experts, the Chinese enterprise's defense against the EU's anti dumping "foreign lawsuit" has gained the direct benefits: first, whoever loses the lawsuit will bear all the litigation costs, which is expected to be as high as 5 million yuan.

Two, the EU should refund the anti-dumping duty that has been collected for 3 years to Chinese enterprises and importers.

More importantly, it provides a reference for Chinese enterprises to sue anti-dumping cases.

Wang Zhentao, chairman of AOKANG company, believes that the most effective way to get rid of the anti-dumping stick is to continuously improve their strength.

The first is to increase investment in science and technology and improve the technological content of products.

From the perspective of product structure, the low technology content of some products in China's exports is easy to cause the impression of dumping at low prices in the importing countries.

It is an urgent problem for Chinese enterprises to intensify technology and R & D and compete with their own intellectual property rights rather than price.

Second is to develop effective international marketing strategy.

Brand value added and other non price competition means are important weights in the current international market competition.

The "going out" of Chinese enterprises needs strong brands to support them.

Wang Zhentao said, "made in China" is basically a product export, but not realizing quality export and brand export, which is the fundamental reason for repeated anti-dumping.

Again, it is to go out of the misunderstanding of killing each other and disorderly competition.

Miu Renzan, general manager of the International Trade Department of Kangnai group, said frankly that anti-dumping is the cause of EU trade protectionism, and Chinese enterprises are also inadequate.

For example, some Chinese enterprises are killing each other. A pair of shoes has been quoted for 5 dollars, and some people have quoted 4.8 dollars, which eventually reduced to 4.5 US dollars or even lower.

Chinese enterprises urgently need to understand international rules

When the EU began to impose a high anti-dumping duty on Chinese shoe enterprises, one thousand private enterprises began to accept the EU anti-dumping investigation.

But later, many enterprises have withdrawn, and the number of enterprises to cope with them has dropped from one thousand to thirty, and then has been further reduced. Only 5 companies such as AOKANG have really resisted litigation.

However, after the first trial was defeated, only AOKANG left alone.

This phenomenon reflects the fear, evasion and omission mentality of Chinese enterprises in the face of unfair or unfair trade rulings, which is a soft spot for Chinese enterprises to participate in international market competition.

As a legal consultant of AOKANG, Pu Ling Chen, partner of Beijing Zhong Lun law firm, has seen many cases of international trade disputes. There is a clear difference between Chinese enterprises and Western Enterprises: the Western business philosophy is to go ahead with the law, first understand, engage in international trade laws and regulations, formulate business models within the framework of the law, conduct business operations and competition.

Chinese enterprises often take the business as the first priority, and the commercial competition goes ahead. First, they should formulate business strategies and business models, carry out business and business competition, and wait for problems and problems before they "cram" and look for the law "fire fighting".

He believes that if Chinese enterprises do not learn the rules of international trade games well, they will not know the local ones.

If we do not study the potential pitfalls of the other party, we will not lose money if we go out.

"Chinese enterprises must learn from western enterprises, pfer the competition procedures, and arm themselves with the law so as to prevent them from happening."

Pu Ling dust emphasizes.