The group released a lengthy statement denouncing the findings of the commission
Kieran Howells11 hours ago
The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bikes has expressed its opposition to the Commission’s decision to register imports.
“While there is still no conclusive evidence for the accusation that imports are injuring the EU industry, the regulation threatens importers with the possible retroactive collection of sky-high dumping duties. This threat hangs like a sword of Damocles over the head of a very large number of European SMEs,” a statement released by the group stated.
The Collective has submitted its official response on the Registration Regulation to the European Commission. In the document, the Collective criticizes the “Commission’s arguments. A first essential point of criticism is that the Commission has based the registration decision on the complaints of the EBMA and on Chinese statistics, obtained in a way which is, to say the least, very doubtful.”
The Collective also argues that the investigation has been going on for six months, enough time for the Commission to test the EBMA complaints against reality and come to provisional findings; for example on the injury to the European industry.
“It is a fact that the Commission does have useful information as a result of the verification visits carried out at Accell, Derby Cycle, Eurosport, Gazelle and Prophete. After these investigations, the non-confidential findings were made public. These clearly show that, for all companies, profitability for the product concerned improved significantly in 2015, 2016 and during the investigation period.”
“These findings go totally against EBMA’s allegations about the injury to European industry as a result of Chinese imports. In defence, the Collective asks the Commission, and this for the third time, to confirm the accuracy of the damage indicators that have been established by verifying the sampled producers. The Collective adds that this information shows no injury for EU producers whatsoever, but crucially improving trends in terms of turnover, sales volumes and profitability.”
The group’s second essential point of criticism is that the European Commission “systematically ignores all argumentation of the Collective. That is in conflict of the article in the dumping legislation that explicitly requires the Commission, as far as registration is concerned, to give importers the opportunity to comment.” The Collective states that the “right to comment is purposeless, if the Commission can simply completely ignore the Collective in the way that it has done, without explaining why their argumentations and the evidence provided has not been sufficient persuasive to the Commission.”
The Collective is “utterly dismayed” by the message that the Commission has sent out with this registration and is “particularly appalled by the dumping rates mentioned in the Regulation because they strike fear into the hearts of EU importers faced with potentially gigantic duties.”
The Collective further notes: “As for the indicative dumping duty rates of 189%, the Commission is fully aware that in no previous anti-dumping investigation has dumping duties even close to this rate ever been imposed by the EU on any imports from any non-EU country. Yet this is the figure that importers have to work with when managing the risks of carrying on their business. Factoring in such an enormous cost renders continued business unfeasible if almost double of the import value of the bicycles will have to be paid in early 2019. It is therefore highly regrettable that the Commission made such a statement of an excessively high potential duty rate being retroactively imposed.”
A third, point of criticism is that the European Commission continues to rely on the use of Chinese export data and to confidentiality for the source of that data. In the Regulation, the Commission mentions two reasons for keeping the data confidential. First, disclosure would breach copyright and, second, the source is known and public against payment.