Abstract The EU's "double" investigation on Chinese photovoltaic products is currently in its preliminary stage, with a one-month timeline before the final decision. Founder has been actively gathering evidence and has raised concerns over several critical issues, including the EU’s failure to meet the 25% threshold for filing, unclear product scope, and other procedural flaws.
At present, there is still one month until the EU’s preliminary determination on its anti-dumping and countervailing measures against China’s photovoltaic products. According to reports, after two hearings in November 2012 and March of this year, China has raised multiple questions regarding the validity of the complaint, the evidence provided, the methodology of damage investigations, and the causality between imports and injury.
"We believe that the complainants cannot prove that the producers supporting the case account for more than 25% of the EU’s production, which means the investigation does not meet the legal requirements," said Fu Donghui, a lawyer from Jin Tiancheng Law Firm, in an interview with International Business Daily. He added that if the preliminary duties are imposed, Chinese companies could face high deposit rates. In response, the entire industry is working under the coordination of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Mechanical and Electrical Products.
**The Complaint Is Not Representative**
After the EU initiated the investigation, Chinese enterprises, the Chamber of Commerce, legal representatives, and the Ministry of Commerce formed a “four-party linkage†to challenge the EU’s claims. One key argument is that the EU’s anti-dumping investigation against China violates the law because the complainants do not represent the broader EU industry.
According to EU anti-dumping rules, at least 25% of EU producers must support the complaint for an investigation to proceed. Although the complaint claims that 33% of EU producers support it, Chinese researchers found that 149 additional European companies are involved in production. If these are included, the threshold would not be met.
Fu also pointed out that the European Commission failed to provide detailed data about the complainants and the EU industry. “Although the complainants claim they represent more than 25% of the EU’s production, they requested anonymity, making it impossible to verify their claims,†he said. The lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the investigation.
During a hearing in November 2012, the Chinese side asked the European Commission to clarify how the representativeness of the complainants was calculated. The Commission explained that questionnaires were distributed to as many EU producers as possible. However, they kept some information confidential, citing the need to protect EU producers from retaliation.
**Confusion Over Product Scope**
Another major issue raised by China is the unclear definition of the product scope. “The current investigation includes crystalline silicon wafers, cells, and modules—three distinct products. However, the EU is grouping them together, which contradicts its own standards,†Fu said. He emphasized that these products have different characteristics, value-added processes, and market conditions, and should be treated separately.
**European Companies Oppose the Taxation**
Despite the scale and complexity of the case, the situation remains unprecedented. Preliminary estimates suggest that Chinese photovoltaic exports to the EU exceed $20 billion, accounting for over 70% of all trade remedy cases involving China in 2012. If the EU imposes tariffs, both sides could suffer significant losses.
Notably, European importers and users have been actively opposing the tax. For example, the European Association of Cheap Solar Energy, representing numerous importers and users, conducted extensive lobbying. On May 15, the Alliance collected a joint letter signed by 1,024 companies across 20 countries and submitted it to the EU Trade Commissioner, urging the Commission to reconsider. The China Chamber of Commerce for Electromechanical Industry supported this move, calling for dialogue and cooperation to achieve a win-win outcome.
Chrome Basin Faucet
Bathroom faucets, it's called Basin Faucets, also known as single-lever faucets, single-handle bathroom faucets is exactly what it sounds like-a bathroom faucet with one handle. There also are Two Handle Basin Faucets and Three Handle Basin faucets, they have longer history than single lever faucets. Until now, consumers in many countries still like to use traditional faucets with three handles. And chrome bathroom faucets are also a popular choice among consumers, and have always been. Chrome faucets can also have many new ideas, for example, the handle is made of ceramic or acrylic, and the handle cover can be decorated with other colors of glass, which adds a layer of design to the classic simplicity of the chrome faucet.
Chrome Basin Taps, Chrome Mixer Taps, Square Bathroom Taps, Bathroom Vanity Taps, Bathroom Faucets
Kaiping Jianfa Sanitary Ware Co.,Ltd. , https://www.jfsanitary.com