I am sure they wont back out of the UK Col. Being selfish though it will make our task selling into Europe almost impossible, pushing us back to Asia.
EBMA files an anti dumping complaint on chinese e-bikes.
- Thread starter Kudoscycles
- Start date
Agreed.... exporters like you loose out, because you'll be less competitive in the other 27 EU nations, and us importers just have to put our prices up. So its a bad thing on both counts. No one wins.
I am pleased at least there is agreement amongst us now that building in China does not mean bikes are of lower quality than European built bikes.
Our main issue with building in Europe is the supply chain. We are all agreed that nearly all bike components are of Asian origin, we find buying parts and building as close the the parts manufacturers as possible is hugely advantageous.
Our main issue with building in Europe is the supply chain. We are all agreed that nearly all bike components are of Asian origin, we find buying parts and building as close the the parts manufacturers as possible is hugely advantageous.
UPDATE
The Commission has asked to meet members of the Collective in Brussels next week, which is a great sign. There are currently 7 UK members (listed below). We will certainly be attending the meeting and I assume that the others in the list below will be there too.
Wisper
EMU
FreeGo
Volt
MTF Enterprises
Oxygen
B-Spoke Leisure
If anyone reading this has been sitting ion the fence not sure whether it is worth joining the group, now is certainly the time to do so. If there are enough of us there, this could be the turning point.
Anyone interested in helping to avert this huge injustice?
Please email me david@amps.bike
All the best, David
The Commission has asked to meet members of the Collective in Brussels next week, which is a great sign. There are currently 7 UK members (listed below). We will certainly be attending the meeting and I assume that the others in the list below will be there too.
Wisper
EMU
FreeGo
Volt
MTF Enterprises
Oxygen
B-Spoke Leisure
If anyone reading this has been sitting ion the fence not sure whether it is worth joining the group, now is certainly the time to do so. If there are enough of us there, this could be the turning point.
Anyone interested in helping to avert this huge injustice?
Please email me david@amps.bike
All the best, David
Sorry, I didn't post this last week. Too busy!
Press release for immediate publication
Collective’s response to registration: Registration Regulation causes
irreparable damage to EU importers
The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bikes has expressed a burning protest against the Commission's decision to register imports. The group denounces the fact that the Registration Regulation causes severe injury to the European importers and seriously jeopardizes the future of the affected companies. 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.
Yesterday, 24 May, the Collective has submitted its official response on the Registration Regulation to the European Commission. In the document, the Collective fiercely criticizes the Commission's arguments. A first essential point of criticism is that the Commission has based the registration decision entirely on the complaints of the EBMA and on Chinese statistics, obtained in a way which is, to say the least, very doubtful.
No injury to EU producers
The Collective 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. As for this, 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.
Appalling messages
A 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. The Collective 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. And the Collective warns the Commission that most importers will be forced to close their business if such high duties would be collected retroactively.
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.”
Dubious data source
A third, important point of criticism is the fact 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.
In the complaint itself, EBMA did not ask for confidentiality for the source. That was only claimed afterwards for reasons, which, to date remain undecipherable. In the meantime, the Collective has researched the availability of the data and found that the necessary data to a 10 digit level (as used by EBMA) cannot be provided because they are not publicly released by the Chinese authorities. This is consistent with the official statement from the Chinese customs authorities (available online on government’s websites: see point 0.1.3 in (http://www.customs.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab70498/info772783.htm) that export data is available only up to 8 digit level. All this goes against the Collective’s right of defence because the Commission is determining import volumes based on data, which the Collective is unable to verify.
Irreparable damage
The Collective concludes: “The Collective and its members are concerned by the lack of objectivity demonstrated by the Commission in the Registration Regulation and worst still, the consequences of its apparent endorsement of the extreme claims made in its two complaints.
The damage caused by the statements made in the Registration Regulation to EU importers is irreparable. They will never be able to recoup the lost sales volumes and revenues in the 2018 season caused by the excessive, disproportionate and unwarranted element of risk that has to be managed as a consequence of the signals sent out to the market in the Registration Regulation.”
Finally, the Collective has requested for another hearing to further explain their concerns regarding both registration and the lack of injury and causation. A the same time, the Collective is contacting the Hearing Officer to also arrange a hearing with this service should the Commission continue to decline the Collective’s requests for the additional information and clarifications set out in the submission.For the full text of the Collective’s submission, any further details or interviews, please contact
Annick Roetynck, tel. +32 9 233 60 05, email leva-eu@telenet.be
Press release for immediate publication
Collective’s response to registration: Registration Regulation causes
irreparable damage to EU importers
The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bikes has expressed a burning protest against the Commission's decision to register imports. The group denounces the fact that the Registration Regulation causes severe injury to the European importers and seriously jeopardizes the future of the affected companies. 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.
Yesterday, 24 May, the Collective has submitted its official response on the Registration Regulation to the European Commission. In the document, the Collective fiercely criticizes the Commission's arguments. A first essential point of criticism is that the Commission has based the registration decision entirely on the complaints of the EBMA and on Chinese statistics, obtained in a way which is, to say the least, very doubtful.
No injury to EU producers
The Collective 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. As for this, 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.
Appalling messages
A 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. The Collective 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. And the Collective warns the Commission that most importers will be forced to close their business if such high duties would be collected retroactively.
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.”
Dubious data source
A third, important point of criticism is the fact 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.
In the complaint itself, EBMA did not ask for confidentiality for the source. That was only claimed afterwards for reasons, which, to date remain undecipherable. In the meantime, the Collective has researched the availability of the data and found that the necessary data to a 10 digit level (as used by EBMA) cannot be provided because they are not publicly released by the Chinese authorities. This is consistent with the official statement from the Chinese customs authorities (available online on government’s websites: see point 0.1.3 in (http://www.customs.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab70498/info772783.htm) that export data is available only up to 8 digit level. All this goes against the Collective’s right of defence because the Commission is determining import volumes based on data, which the Collective is unable to verify.
Irreparable damage
The Collective concludes: “The Collective and its members are concerned by the lack of objectivity demonstrated by the Commission in the Registration Regulation and worst still, the consequences of its apparent endorsement of the extreme claims made in its two complaints.
The damage caused by the statements made in the Registration Regulation to EU importers is irreparable. They will never be able to recoup the lost sales volumes and revenues in the 2018 season caused by the excessive, disproportionate and unwarranted element of risk that has to be managed as a consequence of the signals sent out to the market in the Registration Regulation.”
Finally, the Collective has requested for another hearing to further explain their concerns regarding both registration and the lack of injury and causation. A the same time, the Collective is contacting the Hearing Officer to also arrange a hearing with this service should the Commission continue to decline the Collective’s requests for the additional information and clarifications set out in the submission.For the full text of the Collective’s submission, any further details or interviews, please contact
Annick Roetynck, tel. +32 9 233 60 05, email leva-eu@telenet.be
Here we go just as expected. If we are to sell into Europe post Brexit Taiwan is the only real option. The rest of the market has also sussed this out. Taiwanese built bikes are about $100 more expensive translating to about £120 - £150 retail after duty, delivery, running costs and VAT have been added.
So if they are successful all the EBMA have done is shifted production out of China and into Taiwan increasing prices to the consumer by about £150.00 great job guys, just what the industry needed.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Are the first signs appearing of what could become a large-scale transition? Will Taiwan take-over China’s role as Europe’s biggest supplier of e-bikes? Like what happened with regular bicycles as the 48.5% anti-dumping duty for bicycles imported into the EU pushed the imports from Taiwan? The fact is that figures for 2017 and for the first four months of 2018 show a rapid growth of e-bike imports from Taiwan.
http://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2018/06/eus-e-bike-imports-from-taiwan-growing-fast-10133871?utm_source=Vakmedianet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180607-bikeeurope-std&tid=TIDP419864XF8B47F2AD2244172A828285959349D77YI4
All the best, David
So if they are successful all the EBMA have done is shifted production out of China and into Taiwan increasing prices to the consumer by about £150.00 great job guys, just what the industry needed.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Are the first signs appearing of what could become a large-scale transition? Will Taiwan take-over China’s role as Europe’s biggest supplier of e-bikes? Like what happened with regular bicycles as the 48.5% anti-dumping duty for bicycles imported into the EU pushed the imports from Taiwan? The fact is that figures for 2017 and for the first four months of 2018 show a rapid growth of e-bike imports from Taiwan.
http://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2018/06/eus-e-bike-imports-from-taiwan-growing-fast-10133871?utm_source=Vakmedianet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180607-bikeeurope-std&tid=TIDP419864XF8B47F2AD2244172A828285959349D77YI4
All the best, David
it's less than that. You save on 6% import duty buying from Taiwan.
As I said before, the problem is you can't get the Taiwanese to build the exact same bikes in your current range. It will take time and money to produce a new range of bikes based on what the Taiwanese can offer you.
Thanks! I didn't realise that we saved the 6% duty, do you know if it is the entire 6%?
Last edited:
What all this shows is the power wielded by the EU. After Brexit we will be no better off because May is already saying that to satisfy the Irish border problem she will uphold EU tariffs for an indeterminate time.
I don't suppose our government have made any input either for or against these tariffs.
Just don't see Taiwan as an alternative,the EU will just put the same ADT on Taiwan. They are being very Trump like, they want all bikes to be made in Europe by Europeans ,sadly in a while they won't be interested in supporting the UK, we will be looked upon as a satellite of China.
Perhaps Wisper can build in South Wales supported by a government enterprise scheme after Trump closes our steel industry.
KudosDave
I don't suppose our government have made any input either for or against these tariffs.
Just don't see Taiwan as an alternative,the EU will just put the same ADT on Taiwan. They are being very Trump like, they want all bikes to be made in Europe by Europeans ,sadly in a while they won't be interested in supporting the UK, we will be looked upon as a satellite of China.
Perhaps Wisper can build in South Wales supported by a government enterprise scheme after Trump closes our steel industry.
KudosDave
Not always so. The Taiwanese can behave like a free port,provided the bikes are for export.
Kudos Dave
Hi Dave, we live in hope. The EBMA forced 48.5% ADD onto standard bikes 20 years ago and a huge lump of the market immediately moved toTaiwan, they didn't widen the 48.5% ADD to include Taiwan.
All the best, David
Many of our parts already come from Taiwan we are pretty certain we can work to the 60/40 rule if it still applies, our new centre motor manufacturer is setting up there now and we will be packing batteries there. For other parts we are already engaged with suppliers in finding good alternatives. What hacks me off is this all a complete waste of everyones time.
Last edited:
my problem is running out of stock from around October.
I still have to cover wages until it's sorted - earliest March/April 2019.
I still have to cover wages until it's sorted - earliest March/April 2019.
I sympathise, I too am loathed to order more bikes until I have a feel of which way this is going to end up.
Business is good in the short term. Intelligent customers are buying bikes now realising that the days of cheap Chinese bikes is probably over.
When current Kudos stocks are exhausted then will come the time for decisions.
It is ironic that at a time when the people voted Brexit to 'take back control', the current effect is that the EU have more control than ever and we have no vote to counter that control.
I wonder how many other products the EU will find ways of controlling us, 50 million could never stand up to 500 million.
KudosDave
When current Kudos stocks are exhausted then will come the time for decisions.
It is ironic that at a time when the people voted Brexit to 'take back control', the current effect is that the EU have more control than ever and we have no vote to counter that control.
I wonder how many other products the EU will find ways of controlling us, 50 million could never stand up to 500 million.
KudosDave
You have to admit the EU have been clever. By making this duty retrospective they can keep the negotiations going for years,the risk of ordering bikes that could be subject to massive duties even after delivery is just too risky.
I just don't see a way out of this other than to buy from Europe.
KudosDave
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
