China: Antidumping duty on potato starch originating from the EC
On March 8, 2010, The Potato Starch Council of the China Starch Industry Association asked for a mid-term review of the anti-dumping measures du adjust the anti-dumping duty rates according to the duty margin on Potato Starch imported from the EU.
On April 19, 2010, the MOFCOM released the Notice NO.22(2010)announcing to start the interim review on Potato Starch originating from the EU. In accordance with Article 51 of Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Antidumping, the interim investigation period shall not be exceed one-year's period.
On April 18, 2011, the MOFCOM released the mid-term decision of Notice NO.16 (2011) and decided to levy AD duty on Potato Starch from the EU with the AD rate ranging from 12.6% to 56.7%.
Details of AD duty on EU companies are listed as follows:
Company Name followed by the AD Rate:
- AVEBE U.A. (Netherland) 12.6%
- Avebe Kartoffelstärkefabrik Prignitz/Wendland GmbH (Germany) 12.6%
- ROQUETTE FRERES (France) 56.7%
- All others 56.7%
On February 6, 2012, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) of the People's Republic of China released the Notice NO. 2(2012), announcing the initiation of final review of the above-mentionned antidumping measure. It decided to continue imposing the duties until 5 February 2013.
On 5 February 2013, the Ministry of Commerce published the Notice No. 4(2013) whereby the antidumping measures in force are extended for a period of 5 years.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
|Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?|
|Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?|
|Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?|
|Was such evidence identified?|
|Is such evidence publicly available?|
|Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?|
|Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?|
|Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?|
|Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?|
Date Discovered: 25/04/2010
Date of inception: 19 Apr 2011
GTA Evaluation: Red
Chinese Version Available: http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/b/c/201004/20100406873789.html
Update on 19 April 2011:
Chinese Version Available:
Update on 16 May 2011(Chinese Version Available):
English version: of Announcement No. 16 , 18 April 2011
Update of 5 February 2013 (Chinese):