Beijing to the WTO tire ruling challenge

BEIJING - China's Commerce Ministry said it would appeal a WTO ruling the confirmed U.S. restrictions on imports of China manufactured tyres despite doubts by experts on whether it could assert of a high-profile trade dispute in the next round.

Associated press the World Trade Organization was ruled by the United States within its rights to raise rates of less than 35% on Chinese tires. Above, a factory in Zhejiang.

China went to the WTO challenge President Barack Obama's decision in September 2009 rates of up to 35% on Chinese tires in response, what said the United States was that an increase of tire imports from China was injured to collect U.S. competitors. The case was an emotional, since the United States, use move made by a so-called protective mechanism set out in China's WTO accession agreement, that is unique to China and allows trading partners to imports from it without meeting the same burden of proof required for other countries were limited.

After a year of consultations and legal maneuver ruled the WTO dispute settlement panel Monday was to impose the USA within their rights to the tariffs. The loss to China was not surprising, experts said trade, since it clearly to the protection mechanism agreed when it joined the WTO. But China fears that the victory of the United States to block further deliveries from the world's largest exporter could encourage other countries.

"The Chinese side deep concern is about the potential negative impact of decision of the Panel," said the Department of Commerce in a statement Tuesday on website add that it "will carefully study the Panel report and opposition at a convenient time to protect the legal rights and interests of the Chinese industry."

Chinese Government and industry warned officials after move the United States last year, the rates could cause large layoffs in China's tire industry. But it is unclear whether these fears have been born. Publish not detailed employment data for China. The China rubber industry association, one of the groups last year complained a statement rejected Tuesday.

The Ministry Commerce statement mentioned no effect on Chinese jobs. Rather it argued that the us little won the limits on numbers showing that US tire imports increased and jobs in the U.S. tire industry have decreased this year. "During the special protective measures caused a significant decline in China's Tire exports to the United States turned around the United States and increased imports from other countries," said in the statement.

Associated press

The timing of the WTO ruling was inconvenient for China. There was a large delegation of Chinese officials headed by Vice Premier Wang Qishan, arrived in Washington on Monday night for the last round of the US China Joint Commission on Commerce and trade, a regular series of talks on a number of bilateral economic disputes.

Monday's loss not China's first at the WTO, and as it focuses on the safeguard provisions, rather than a broader complaint about the way way China manages its economy, its effects are limited.

Some Chinese specialists provide the judgment could be harmful, nor if it encourages others to follow.

"China's appeal only served to make the U.S. protectionist tariffs seem more legitimate", said TU xinquan, Deputy Director of the China Institute for WTO in Beijing. "The WTO judgment can only further aggravate the situation and encourage other countries to follow the United States" in restriction of imports from China, he said.

On its planned complaint at the WTO is China's response be likely limited. The country has increasingly channelled their trade complaints by the WTO, which occurred in 2001, win the most cases, the dispute resolution Panel has put it.

And there is a limited time window for the United States and other countries use the controversial procedure to block Chinese imports. The "transitional measures of protection mechanism", that China, agreed when it joined the WTO in 2001 in 2013, will expire, even though that were unaffected countries ability, normal anti-dumping or anti-subsidy cases against Chinese track.

-Junting Zhang contributed to this article.

Write toAndrew Batson at andrew.batson@wsj.com

View the original article here