The WTO dance sword is intended for rare earths? China's rare earth exports face reform
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been widely concerned about the Chinese raw material export restrictions. Although the case does not involve rare earth products, this time the European and American countries' "going to the stone" road is supported by the WTO, the rare earth is likely to be the next target.
According to the WTO website, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body distributed a report to the WTO members on the case of the EU and the United States v. China restricting the export of nine kinds of raw materials on the 5th local time. The report stated that China restricted the export of nine kinds of raw materials not in compliance with WTO regulations.
The nine raw materials are alumina, coke, fluorite, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal, silicon carbide, yellow phosphorus and zinc, and do not include rare earths.
Among them, the expert group ruled that the export tariffs and export quota measures involved in the case in China did not meet the Chinese WTO commitments and relevant WTO rules, and did not meet the conditions for the protection of available natural resources and protection of human life and health.
The person in charge of the Department of Law and Law of the Ministry of Commerce said that the Chinese side expressed regret that it is currently evaluating the report of the panel of experts and will properly follow up the case in accordance with the WTO dispute settlement procedures.
Relevant persons from the Ministry of Commerce further told the reporters of the "First Financial Daily" that the rare earth conjecture triggered by the case does not currently consider that there is an inevitable correlation and further research is needed. The next step is whether the appeal is still under study. Another person close to the negotiations told this newspaper that, in fact, the core issue of the raw materials case is the mismatch between export and domestic sales policies.
Zhao Zhongxiu, dean of the School of International Trade at the University of International Business and Economics, pointed out to this reporter that on the one hand, the current procedure has not been completed, and the Chinese side is likely to continue appealing on the other hand; on the other hand, the unfavorable ruling is also conducive to forced Reform of all aspects of mining, smelting and production of domestic resource products. Due to the high similarity between rare earths and the case, Europe and the United States are likely to push China's rare earth [2.86 2.88%] export control measures to the WTO.
China may appeal
The dispute between Chinese and foreign raw materials originated on June 23, 2009. At that time, the United States and the European Union jointly filed a lawsuit against the WTO, arguing that China imposed an export tax on the above nine kinds of raw materials and treated the domestic and foreign-funded enterprises differently.
Thereafter, in accordance with the relevant procedures, China and the United States, Europe, and Mexico jointly held two rounds of constructive consultations on raw material exports in July and September 2009. However, in view of the failure to find a mutually satisfactory solution through consultations, the WTO decided on December 21, 2009 to set up an expert group to investigate the case of the United States, the European Union and Mexico accusing China of restricting the export of raw materials.
On February 18 this year, the WTO expert group distributed an interim report to the parties, which was distributed to the members in April. On the 5th, the results of the ruling were distributed to the outside world.
According to Zhao Zhongxiu, according to the procedures of the WTO, China still has 60 days to negotiate with all parties (including the United States, Europe, and Mexico). If the Chinese are ready to appeal, the Appellate Body will also give a ruling after about two months after consulting the parties. But in general, the interim report, or the preliminary report, will also seek the opinions of all parties, but the general results will generally not change.
"The reason why China proposes environmental protection and sustainable development has not been adopted by the expert group. Therefore, during this period, China and the parties still have room for consultation. But the results may not change." Zhao Zhongxiu said.
On the other hand, this is also related to China's participation in the WTO negotiations without being aware of the future impact of related raw materials such as rare earths.
“When China entered the WTO negotiations, we listed a list of resource products that allowed for the export tax. It seems that the list of products in this list is not only a small number, but many of the listed products, such as rare earths, are not included; Generally speaking, it is relatively low." Tu Xinquan, vice president of the China WTO School of the University of International Business and Economics, pointed out to the newspaper that "at that time, countries' policies on export control were very loose, and many developing countries actually imposed export taxes. It’s only these few years that have caught the attention of these trading partners."
Since the case is highly similar to China's previous rare earth export controls, the industry is generally worried that Europe and the United States may push the issue of rare earths to the WTO.
Another intriguing phenomenon is that, just as the report is still in the confidentiality period, a number of media have been reported by the parties, the result of the ruling may be unfavorable to China, and the theme is intended to be rare earth.
According to the WTO website, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body distributed a report to the WTO members on the case of the EU and the United States v. China restricting the export of nine kinds of raw materials on the 5th local time. The report stated that China restricted the export of nine kinds of raw materials not in compliance with WTO regulations.
The nine raw materials are alumina, coke, fluorite, magnesium, manganese, silicon metal, silicon carbide, yellow phosphorus and zinc, and do not include rare earths.
Among them, the expert group ruled that the export tariffs and export quota measures involved in the case in China did not meet the Chinese WTO commitments and relevant WTO rules, and did not meet the conditions for the protection of available natural resources and protection of human life and health.
The person in charge of the Department of Law and Law of the Ministry of Commerce said that the Chinese side expressed regret that it is currently evaluating the report of the panel of experts and will properly follow up the case in accordance with the WTO dispute settlement procedures.
Relevant persons from the Ministry of Commerce further told the reporters of the "First Financial Daily" that the rare earth conjecture triggered by the case does not currently consider that there is an inevitable correlation and further research is needed. The next step is whether the appeal is still under study. Another person close to the negotiations told this newspaper that, in fact, the core issue of the raw materials case is the mismatch between export and domestic sales policies.
Zhao Zhongxiu, dean of the School of International Trade at the University of International Business and Economics, pointed out to this reporter that on the one hand, the current procedure has not been completed, and the Chinese side is likely to continue appealing on the other hand; on the other hand, the unfavorable ruling is also conducive to forced Reform of all aspects of mining, smelting and production of domestic resource products. Due to the high similarity between rare earths and the case, Europe and the United States are likely to push China's rare earth [2.86 2.88%] export control measures to the WTO.
China may appeal
The dispute between Chinese and foreign raw materials originated on June 23, 2009. At that time, the United States and the European Union jointly filed a lawsuit against the WTO, arguing that China imposed an export tax on the above nine kinds of raw materials and treated the domestic and foreign-funded enterprises differently.
Thereafter, in accordance with the relevant procedures, China and the United States, Europe, and Mexico jointly held two rounds of constructive consultations on raw material exports in July and September 2009. However, in view of the failure to find a mutually satisfactory solution through consultations, the WTO decided on December 21, 2009 to set up an expert group to investigate the case of the United States, the European Union and Mexico accusing China of restricting the export of raw materials.
On February 18 this year, the WTO expert group distributed an interim report to the parties, which was distributed to the members in April. On the 5th, the results of the ruling were distributed to the outside world.
According to Zhao Zhongxiu, according to the procedures of the WTO, China still has 60 days to negotiate with all parties (including the United States, Europe, and Mexico). If the Chinese are ready to appeal, the Appellate Body will also give a ruling after about two months after consulting the parties. But in general, the interim report, or the preliminary report, will also seek the opinions of all parties, but the general results will generally not change.
"The reason why China proposes environmental protection and sustainable development has not been adopted by the expert group. Therefore, during this period, China and the parties still have room for consultation. But the results may not change." Zhao Zhongxiu said.
On the other hand, this is also related to China's participation in the WTO negotiations without being aware of the future impact of related raw materials such as rare earths.
“When China entered the WTO negotiations, we listed a list of resource products that allowed for the export tax. It seems that the list of products in this list is not only a small number, but many of the listed products, such as rare earths, are not included; Generally speaking, it is relatively low." Tu Xinquan, vice president of the China WTO School of the University of International Business and Economics, pointed out to the newspaper that "at that time, countries' policies on export control were very loose, and many developing countries actually imposed export taxes. It’s only these few years that have caught the attention of these trading partners."
Since the case is highly similar to China's previous rare earth export controls, the industry is generally worried that Europe and the United States may push the issue of rare earths to the WTO.
Another intriguing phenomenon is that, just as the report is still in the confidentiality period, a number of media have been reported by the parties, the result of the ruling may be unfavorable to China, and the theme is intended to be rare earth.
UVC Lamp 253.7nm, different type. quartz material .
Uvc Lamp,Uv Germicidal Bulb,Uv Germicidal Lamp,Uvc Tube
Changxing leboom lighting product CO.Ltd. , https://www.leboomuv.com