EU announces plan to impose 38.1% tariff on Chinese-made EVs

Recently NHK News on-line reported the following:

EU 中国製EVに38.1％の関税 上乗せする方針を発表

2024年6月12日 22時16分

EU＝ヨーロッパ連合は、中国から輸入されるEV＝電気自動車について、中国政府からの不公平な補助金を受け、ヨーロッパの企業に損害を与えるおそれがあるとして、暫定的に最大で38.1％の関税を上乗せする方針を発表しました。中国側は強く反発しています。

EUの執行機関、ヨーロッパ委員会は12日、中国から輸入されるEVについて、すでに課している10％に加え、暫定的に関税を上乗せする方針を明らかにしました。

上乗せは最大で38.1％で、中国当局との協議で状況が改善しなければ、7月4日以降、発動するとしています。

対象となるのは、中国メーカーに加えて、中国で製造する欧米メーカーも含まれます。

ヨーロッパ委員会は、中国から輸入されるEVが、中国政府からの補助金を受け、EU市場での競争をゆがめているとして、2023年10月から調査を行っていました。

その結果、供給網のあらゆる段階で補助金を受けていることが確認され、こうした車が、EU市場でのシェアを急速に伸ばしていることで、EUのメーカーは価格を引き上げられず損失を出しているとしています。

中国製のEVをめぐっては、アメリカのバイデン政権が5月に、関税を25％から100％に引き上げると発表していて、EUの方針はこれに続くもので、中国側は強く反発しています。

中国外務省「合法的な権益を断固として守る」

EU側の発表に先立って中国外務省の林剣報道官は12日の記者会見で「市場経済の原則と国際貿易のルールに反し、中国とEUの経済貿易協力や世界の自動車生産のサプライチェーンの安定を損ない、最終的にはEU自身の利益を損なうものだ」と主張しました。

そのうえで「われわれはEUに対し、自由貿易を支持し、保護主義に反対するという約束を厳守するよう求める。中国は、あらゆる必要な措置をとってみずからの合法的な権益を断固として守る」と述べ、対抗措置をとることを示唆しました。

中国商務省「断固反対」EUの発表に強く反発 対抗措置を示唆

EU＝ヨーロッパ連合の発表を受けて、中国商務省の報道官は「中国は強い懸念と強烈な不満を示し、中国産業界も深く失望するとともに断固反対する」と強く反発するコメントを出しました。

そして、「EU側の行いは、中国のEV＝電気自動車産業の合法的な権益を損なうだけでなく、EUを含む世界の自動車サプライチェーンを乱し、ねじ曲げるものだ」と主張しました。

そのうえで、「中国はEUに対し、直ちに誤ったやり方を正すよう求める。中国側はEU側の今後の進展を細かく注視するとともに、あらゆる必要な措置をとり、中国企業の合法的な権益を断固として守る」として対抗措置をとることを示唆しました。

Translation

The European Union (EU) had announced a plan to impose a provisional tariff of up to 38.1% on EVs (electric vehicles) imported from China, claiming that they are receiving unfair subsidies from the Chinese government and might harm European companies. China had strongly opposed this.

On the 12th, the European Commission, the EU's executive body, announced its plan to provisionally impose tariffs on EVs imported from China, in addition to the 10% already imposed.

The tariff would be up to 38.1%, and could be implemented after July 4th if the situation did not improve through discussions with Chinese authorities.

In addition to Chinese manufacturers, the tariffs would also apply to European and American manufacturers manufacturing in China.

The European Commission had been investigating since October 2023, claiming that EVs imported from China were receiving subsidies from the Chinese government and distorting competition in the EU market.

As a result, it had been confirmed that subsidies were being received at every stage of the supply chain, and as these cars were rapidly increasing their share of the EU market, EU manufacturers were unable to raise prices and were suffering losses.

Regarding Chinese-made EVs, the Biden administration in the United States announced in May that it would raise tariffs from 25% to 100%, and the EU's policy followed suit, and China strongly opposed it.

Chinese Foreign Ministry: "Resolutely Defend Legitimate Rights and Interests"

Prior to the EU's announcement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian argued at a press conference on the 12th that "it goes against the principles of market economy and the rules of international trade, undermines economic and trade cooperation between China and the EU and the stability of the global automotive production supply chain, and ultimately harms the EU's own interests."

He then said, "We urge the EU to strictly adhere to its commitment to support free trade and oppose protectionism. China will take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests," suggesting that countermeasures would be taken.

China's Ministry of Commerce strongly opposed EU announcement, hinting at countermeasures

In response to the EU's announcement, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce issued a strong statement, saying, "China expresses strong concerns and strong dissatisfaction, and the Chinese industry is deeply disappointed and firmly opposed."

The spokesperson also claimed, "The EU's actions not only undermine the legitimate rights and interests of China's electric vehicle industry, but also disrupt and distort the global automotive supply chain, including the EU."

On top of that, "China urges the EU to immediately correct its erroneous practices. China will closely monitor future developments on the EU side and will take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies," suggesting countermeasures.

              So, the EU has announced a plan to impose a provisional tariff on EVs imported from China, claiming that they have received unfair subsidies from the Chinese government and may harm European companies. China has strongly opposed this and vowed to take all necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies. I am wondering whether a trade war will erupt between China and EU because of the EVs.

「成為極權政府」：英國法官為何退出香港法院 (2/2)

Recently BBC News on-line reported the following:

'Becoming a totalitarian state': UK judge on why he quit Hong Kong court (2/2)

11 June 2024

By Frances Mao, BBC News

(continue)

Why are there foreign judges serving in Hong Kong?

It is a holdover from Hong Kong’s past as a British colony.

After the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the agreement between the countries stipulated that the special territory would continue to operate with its freedoms and systems for 50 years- including its common law legal system which operates in several other jurisdictions worldwide.

Currently there seven foreign judges remaining on the court– three British and four from Australia. Typically they are very experienced senior judges who have retired from their countries’ senior courts.

They operate as overseas non-permanent appointees; a typical appeal bench of five judges at the Court of Final Appeal will see a foreign judge hearing the case along with three other local judges.

Their presence was long seen as a sort of bulwark protection to help uphold the British-style common law legal system which has been key to Hong Kong’s stature as a global financial hub.

As recently as March this year, Hong Kong’s leader praised the foreign judges saying their appointments "help maintain a high degree of confidence in (Hong Kong's) judicial system". According to recent media reports, they are paid £40,000 per case.

Lord Sumption had said most of Hong Kong’s judges are “honourable people with all the liberal instincts of the common law.”

“But they have to operate in an impossible political environment created by China.”

Controversial presence

Since Hong Kong’s security laws kicked in, rights groups, critics and even the UK government had questioned the foreign judges’ continued presence on the court.

In 2020, a senior Australian judge was the first to step down from the court. James Spigelman directly cited the impact of the wide-sweeping National Security Law which hadn’t kicked into operation yet.

Two years later, UK Supreme Court justices Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge also stepped down following concerns raised by the British government.

Lord Reed, the chief justice of the top UK court, said he agreed with the government that serving Supreme Court justices could not continue to serve in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse a government that had “departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

The remaining judges on the court at the time – which included Lords Collins and Sumption – issued a statement shortly after defending their position.

They said they believed their “continued participation” would be “in the interest of the people of Hong Kong”.

But on Monday, Lord Sumption said he no longer believed this.

He told the BBC he had chosen to stay on the first few years "to see how things develop and to hope that one can make a positive contribution." He had written he hoped "the presence of overseas judges would help sustain the rule of law."

"It's taken a long time to conclude that that is not realistic."

His sharp criticism and the resignations of the other judges will further fuel concerns about Hong Kong’s status as an international city, particular as the latest resignations come just weeks after the city implemented a second, even more wide-scoping security law known as Article 23.

Legal scholar Eric Lai, told the BBC the two British judges had been “well known” for their support of Hong Kong’s legal system in the past and their commitment to the court in critical cases.

“Their change of mind to resign signals the worsening legal environment in HK,” he said.

But the city's authorities defend the integrity of their legal system.

The chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal said last week the court would continue to function regardless of the resignations.

Andrew Cheung stressed the court's independence: "All judges and judicial officers will continue to... administer justice in full accordance with the law, without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit".

 Translation

（繼續）

為什麼會有外籍法官在香港服務？

它是香港過去作為英國殖民地的遺物。

1997年英國將香港交還給中國後，兩國之間的協議規定，這個特殊領土將繼續以其各種自由和制度運作50年，包括在全球其他幾個司法管轄區運作的普通法法律制度。

目前，法庭上仍有七名外國法官 - 三名英國法官，四名澳洲法官。通常，他們是從本國高等法院退休的經驗豐富的高級法官。

他們以海外非常任任命者的身分運作；終審法院典型的上訴法庭由五位法官組成，其中一名外國法官與另外三名本地法官一起審理案件。

長期以來，它們的存在被視為一種保護牆，有助於維護英國式的普通法法律體系，而這個體系對於香港作為全球金融中心的地位至關重要。

就在今年三月，香港領導人還讚揚了外國法官，稱他們的任命「有助於保持對（香港）司法制度的高度信心」。據最近媒體報道，每單案件他們的報酬為 4 萬英鎊。

岑耀信勳爵曾表示，大多數香港法官都是「受人尊敬的人，地具有普通法中的所有自由本能」。

「但他們必須在中國搭建出來的不可能的政治環境中運作」。

有爭議性的存在

自香港國安法生效以來，人權組織、批評人士甚至英國政府都對外國法官是否繼續出庭提出質疑。

2020年，澳洲一名資深法官率先卸任。James Spigelman 直接指出了尚未實施的, 廣泛的國家安全法的影響。

兩年後，英國最高法院法官 Robert Reed 和 Patrick Hodge 也因英國政府提出的擔憂而辭職。

英國最高法院首席大法官 Reed 勳爵表示，他同意政府的觀點，即在香港高法院法任職，不能避免顯得是在支持一個 “背離政治自由和言論自由價” 的政府 。

當時法庭上的其餘法官 - 包括 Collins 勳爵和岑耀信勳爵 - 在辯解自己的立場後不久發表了一份聲明。

他們表示，相信「繼續參與」是會「符合香港人民的利益」。

但在周一，岑耀信勳爵表示他不再相信這一點。

他告訴英國廣播公司，他選擇留在最初幾年「去看看事情如何發展，並希望人們能夠做出積極的貢獻」。他寫道他希望「海外法官的存在將有助於法律規則」。

「我花了很長時間得出結論是這是不切實際的」。

他尖銳的批評和其他法官的辭職將進一步加劇人們對香港作為國際城市地位的擔憂，特別是在最近的辭職是發生在香港實施第二項範圍更廣的安全法, 即 “第23條 幾週之後。

法律學者 Eric Lai 告訴英國廣播公司，這兩位英國法官因過去對香港法律制度的支持以及在關鍵案件中對法院的承諾而「眾所周知」。

他說: 「他們改變想法而去辭職表明香港的法律環境正在惡化」。

但香港政府辯解其法律體系有誠實和堅持原則性。

終審法院首席法官上週表示，不管有出現辭職，法院將繼續運作。

Andrew Cheung(張舉能)強調法院的獨立性：「所有法官和司法人員將繼續……完全依法施法，不畏不偏、不謀私利、不欺騙」。

              So, Lord Sumption gives his warning that the city is “slowly becoming a totalitarian state” and judges are being compromised by an “impossible political environment created by China” after the implementation of Hong Kong’s security laws. In 2020, a senior Australian judge was the first to step down from the court. Two years later, UK Supreme Court justices Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge also left their posts. I am wondering will all non-permanent overseas leave Hong Kong eventually.

Note:

1. The Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong is made up of the Chief Justices, Permanent Judges, and non-permanent Judges who can come from Hong Kong or any overseas Common Law jurisdictions. All appeal cases are heard by a bench of these five judges. (Wikipedia)

2. Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, (張舉能) is currently the chief judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong and the designated judge of the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law. (Wikipedia)