January 15, 20188 yr Just wanted to reply to this.... There are a load of countries that are classed as Developing that the EU actively supports by giving them access to the EU with no tariff / duty. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/everything-arms yes, I am well aware of this. Many Chinese companies move manufacturing to the 27 countries that enjoy GSP+ status. However, that still fulfill the original objective of the complaint: moving production to another countries increases your cost and reduces your ability to compete.
January 15, 20188 yr moving production to another countries increases your cost and reduces your ability to compete. ....or in some cases reduces your costs and increases your ability to cope.
January 17, 20188 yr Our group fighting the EBMA had a meeting in Brussels yesterday with our lawyers, several other European importers and the team leading the anti dumping investigation at the Commission. It was interesting and very constructive, expelling a lot of myths. If anyone in our group would like details please drop me a line but we will be contacting you later in the week with a full account. I have been asked by the group and our lawyers not to make the detail of the meeting public. Suffice to say the imposition of ADT is not a forgone conclusion.
January 25, 20188 yr Just back from a few days in Portugal's "Bicycle Valley" what an eye opener. The local municipality with the Portuguese and Europeans are pumping millions into the area in terms of grants and subsidies. All very tempting. I now understand the earlier comments made by Col at KTM re ADT and he is absolutely correct. ADT of course would be a nuisance but most of us will be able to sort something out in terms of supply moving forward. (Quite honestly it could be a very good thing for many of us.) Col mentioned that the bigger suppliers would be pushing for a crack down on certification especially of the electronics. Further to a visit to the testing organisation ABIMOTA it seems that the big centre motor suppliers are asking for their systems to be considered "closed" systems (all the electronics supplied as a set) all others will be "open". This will make a big difference in the way the bikes are certified. As of early 2019 it seems that there could be a crack down on ebike certification across Europe. If us smaller firms are not ready and do not comply to the latest directives and certification requirements, we could have a bigger problem than ADT. As it's a bit of a mine field I have asked LEVA to put together a comprehensive but simple "Guide to European E-Bike Certification". If anyone is interested in obtaining a copy please email david@wisperbikes.com
January 25, 20188 yr Just back from a few days in Portugal's "Bicycle Valley" what an eye opener. The local municipality with the Portuguese and Europeans are pumping millions into the area in terms of grants and subsidies. All very tempting. I now understand the earlier comments made by Col at KTM re ADT and he is absolutely correct. ADT of course would be a nuisance but most of us will be able to sort something out in terms of supply moving forward. (Quite honestly it could be a very good thing for many of us.) Col mentioned that the bigger suppliers would be pushing for a crack down on certification especially of the electronics. Further to a visit to the testing organisation ABIMOTA it seems that the big centre motor suppliers are asking for their systems to be considered "closed" systems (all the electronics supplied as a set) all others will be "open". This will make a big difference in the way the bikes are certified. As of early 2019 it seems that there could be a crack down on ebike certification across Europe. If us smaller firms are not ready and do not comply to the latest directives and certification requirements, we could have a bigger problem than ADT. As it's a bit of a mine field I have asked LEVA to put together a comprehensive but simple "Guide to European E-Bike Certification". If anyone is interested in obtaining a copy please email david@wisperbikes.com Is this another stitch up by the Germans?
January 25, 20188 yr Can bikes assembled in Portugal compete against Cube on price? Yes, it just depends how much the brand wants to make in margin, how much the distributor if there is one, wants to make, and then how much margin the retailer is given. Cube in the UK come in via the Dutch distributor I think, so they have a number of suppliers in the chain, so there is scope for beating them on price if a brand wanted to.
January 25, 20188 yr Is this another stitch up by the Germans? As far as I could ascertain, it's all of them except Brose. So Shimano, Bosch and Yamaha. So certainly not just the Germans. Edited January 25, 20188 yr by Wisper Bikes
January 25, 20188 yr Can bikes assembled in Portugal compete against Cube on price? We are being quoted about 5% more than in China and that's with wheels and spokes coming from France and being built in Portugal. We are currently being quoted for frames, painting, and batteries, we will pay more for those. Most of the other components are available in Spain or Portugal for the same price as in China. Logistics will be more tedious to start with! I will retain my ties with China though and the rest of our electronics will stay the same. If we defeat the EBMA we will have the choice of where to have our bikes built, that's a commercial decision that will be made at that time. So all in all, maybe 7% more, but our bikes will be "Made in Portugal" and I wont be paying many thousands a year for my team and I to travel back and forth to Shanghai. And it's beautiful in Portugal! Edited January 25, 20188 yr by Wisper Bikes
January 25, 20188 yr As far as I could ascertain, it's all of them except Brose. So Shimano, Bosch and Yamaha. Ain't the EU wonderful.
January 26, 20188 yr Just back from a few days in Portugal's "Bicycle Valley" what an eye opener. The local municipality with the Portuguese and Europeans are pumping millions into the area in terms of grants and subsidies. All very tempting. I now understand the earlier comments made by Col at KTM re ADT and he is absolutely correct. ADT of course would be a nuisance but most of us will be able to sort something out in terms of supply moving forward. (Quite honestly it could be a very good thing for many of us.) Col mentioned that the bigger suppliers would be pushing for a crack down on certification especially of the electronics. Further to a visit to the testing organisation ABIMOTA it seems that the big centre motor suppliers are asking for their systems to be considered "closed" systems (all the electronics supplied as a set) all others will be "open". This will make a big difference in the way the bikes are certified. As of early 2019 it seems that there could be a crack down on ebike certification across Europe. If us smaller firms are not ready and do not comply to the latest directives and certification requirements, we could have a bigger problem than ADT. As it's a bit of a mine field I have asked LEVA to put together a comprehensive but simple "Guide to European E-Bike Certification". If anyone is interested in obtaining a copy please email david@wisperbikes.com Not really trying to hijack this into the Brexit debate, but the UK will have limited say in the future decision making on european ebike certification
January 27, 20188 yr Not really trying to hijack this into the Brexit debate, but the UK will have limited say in the future decision making on european ebike certification A good point! I’d not considered that.
February 12, 20188 yr "There is a lot of incorrect information and unsubstantiated rumours going around in and outside Europe about the anti-dumping proceedings against electric bicycles imported from China." New from LEVA EU DUMPING CASE ON E-BIKES FROM CHINA: THE FACTS SO FAR Posted on February 8, 2018 by AR - EU There is a lot of incorrect information and unsubstantiated rumours going around in and outside Europe about the anti-dumping proceedings against electric bicycles imported from China. With this article, LEVA-EU establishes the facts based on dumping legislation. LEVA-EU hopes that this will put a stop to the gossip factory and will help companies to make a well-informed decision on their plans for the next few months and years. If, after reading this article, you are still left with questions and doubts, get in touch with us: leva-eu@telenet.be, tel. +32 9 233 60 05. The only thing we know for sure at this moment in time is the following. So far, the Commission has not used the right to impose provisional duties. The imports are not being registered, which for now rules out retroactive collection of definitive duties. As for how this case concludes: all options are still open, i.e. definitive measures, withdrawal of the complaint or termination without measures. First and foremost, there are no dumping duties for electric bicycles from China in place yet, no provisional duties, no definitive duties. Electric bikes imported from China are currently only subject to the normal import duty of 6%. Provisional duties The European Commission has the right to impose provisional duties. This right came into effect on 20th December 2017 and may be used until 20th July 2018. The Commission may do so on condition that they have determined that there is dumping going on, that this dumping causes injury to the Union Industry and that the Union interest calls for measures to prevent injury. But once again, to date the Commission has not introduced any provisional duties at all. Should provisional duties be imposed, then these will not have to be paid immediately. It will suffice to secure the duties by a guarantee. Provisional duties may be imposed for 6 months and extended for another 3 months or they may immediately be imposed for one period of 9 months. Should provisional duties be imposed, then the Commission must initiate the procedure for determining definitive measures no later than 1 month before the expiry of the provisional duties. Retroactivity If definitive duties are imposed, they may be levied for no more than 90 days prior to the date of application of provisional measures but not prior to the initiation of the investigation. However, 4 conditions need to be fulfilled: The imports must be registered, which is not the case for now. Registration can only happen following a request from the Union industry, which must contain sufficient evidence to justify the registration. The importers must be given an opportunity to comment on that request. There should be a history of dumping for the product concerned over an extended period or the importers should be or should have been aware of that dumping In addition to the level of import, which caused injury during the investigation period, there should be a further substantial rise in imports, which is likely to undermine the remedial effect of the definitive measures. If this retroactivity is not applied, the provisional duties may still be collected from the date of their application. It is then up to the Commission to decide, irrespective of the imposition of definitive duties, which proportion of the provisional duty is to be collected. If the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, the difference will not be collected. If it is lower, the duty shall be recalculated. Duration Definitive measures shall remain in force as long as it is necessary to counteract dumping, which is causing injury. Definitive measures expire 5 years after their imposition unless the Union industry lodges a request for an expiry review. They must do this no later than 3 months before the end of the 5-year period. During these five years the Commission at their own initiative or at the request of a member state may review the measures. A request for an interim review may also be lodged at least one year after the imposition of the measures by exporters (Chinese manufacturers) or by importers or by the Union producers if they believe that the measures are insufficient to remedy the dumping and injury. Anti-circumvention An anti-circumvention investigation can only be initiated if definitive duties have been imposed. This may happen at the initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State or any interested party. Nevertheless, there must be enough time between the imposition of definitive duties and such a complaint to be able to establish that circumvention is going on. A period of at least 9 months to 1 year seems necessary. If anti-circumvention measures were to be imposed, it is unlikely for this to happen before June 2020. Should anti-circumvention measures be imposed then assemblers in Europe will be able to apply for an exemption of these measures for the import of relevant parts on condition that the parts constitute no more than 59% of the total value of the parts of the assembled product. The remaining 41% may be imported from any country inside and outside Europe not included in the anti-circumvention measures. The end? As explained, the proceeding may end with the imposition of definitive measures or not. The Commission should normally conclude the proceeding no later than 20th October 2018 and in no case later than 20th January 2029. There are two ways of terminating the case without any measures. Either the complainant withdraws the complaint, or the Commission terminates the case without imposing any measures. If the complainant withdraws the complaint, then they may resend it to the Commission whenever they want. If the case is terminated by the Commission, then the complainant must wait 1 year before reintroducing the complaint.
February 12, 20188 yr LEVA - EU are doing a huge amount of work on behalf of the smaller electric bike producers and importers of Europe. This mammoth task is being undertaken at considerable expense part subsidised by a few professional ebike companies. The work being undertaken will benefit everyone in the business, currently working with China. There is very much more to be gained by joining this highly professional organisation. For instance the new regulations for electric bikes is a complete minefield, many of the less expensive bikes available do not conform or will not do when the new rules kick in. LEVA provides it's members with a concise guide on how to make certain ebikes comply. If you are interested please drop me a line or contact LEVA EU directly. leva-eu@telenet.be you will get a very warm welcome and you help would be fantastic and hugely appreciated. All the best, David
February 22, 20188 yr COLLECTIVE OF EUROPEAN IMPORTERS OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES ASKS COMMISSION TO REJECT EBMA REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION Posted on February 22, 2018 by AR - EU Today, the Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles has asked the European Commission to decline EBMA’s request for registration of imports. In a 13-page document, the Collective argues in great detail that there is no justification and necessity for such registration. According to the Collective, the EBMA has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its request. “Nowhere in the request has any actual evidence of stockpiling been produced; nor has the EBMA attempted in any way to correlate the trends in export volumes with the established cyclical demand that exists in the EU e-bike market. Linking this paucity of evidence with the apparent fact that the EU industry shows no signs of the infliction of any injury caused by Chinese e-bike imports, the Collective concludes that the EBMA’s request is speculative and aspirational rather than grounded in any real concerns requiring the registration of imports to protect the well-being of the EU industry.” Importers’ injury The Collective produces exhaustive arguments to prove its point. The group of 20 importers from 8 member states start off by pointing out that registration of import would inflict even greater damage on EU e-bike imports than has already been caused by the initiation of the two investigations. The Collective’s members have suffered major disruptions to their business activities, future planning and development of their products caused by the uncertainties of the outcome of these investigations. As a result, the Collective states: “Registration of imports would therefore inflict a disproportionate degree of injury on EU importers compared to the comparative non-existent injury suffered by the EU industry alleged caused by e-bike imports from China.” Unverifiable statistics First of all, the Collective argues that the data presented by EBMA to substantiate the request do not reflect accurate import levels. The EBMA has provided the Commission with Chinese export statistics but has requested to keep this information confidential. Whilst such confidentiality is without any grounds, it also obstructs independent verification of the statistics. Should the statistics however refer to the Chinese export code HS 8711901010 (电动自行车), then it must be considered that this code covers “electric self-moving vehicles”, which is a far larger category than simply e-bikes. It also includes for example electric hoverboards, electric skateboards, electric scooters, electric monowheels, self-balancing vehicles, etc. This may well distort both export volumes and average price. Unsubstantiated allegations The Collective strongly contests the unsubstantiated allegations against importers who are being accused by EBMA of stockpiling “dumped and subsidised EPACs from China”. The total lead-time from designing an electric bicycle to actual delivery is typically around 8 to 14 months. For repeat orders, typical lead-times would be 5 to 8 months. These specific characteristics of the electric bike business exclude any commercial and business rationality of ordering extensive quantities of electric bicycles randomly, from any Chinese assembler that has some production capacity left. The EBMA claims in its request that “EU EPAC producers are mainly SMEs”, while EU importers are “large customers” implying that they are not SMEs. To date, all companies in the Collective are SME’s. In contrast, at least three of the sampled EU producers are extremely large enterprises or groups with significant production capacity, a well-capitalised corporate structure and a sizeable number of employees. It is therefore grossly misleading to present the EU industry as a group of SMEs confronted by larger and stronger importing companies. Highly misleading It is absolutely incorrect for the EBMA to claim that the higher level of exports from China in December 2017 point to stockpiling activities. These products will not have arrived in the EU until February or March 2018. Therefore, these imports will arrive in the EU and be available for sale at the start of the high selling season, March till September, and that is completely in line with the pattern of demand in the EU market each year as it currently operates. Furthermore, there is also the impact of the Chinese New Year, which usually closes each factory for about three weeks. To ship out enough bikes for the sales in March, April and the first half of May, EU importers rely on the use of full production capacity in November to January. This explains why export shipments in December and January for delivery in the EU in the next months are normally higher than the average while deliveries dip in the subsequent months. In fact, EBMA’s export data corroborate this explanation, keeping in mind that there is a time shift of between 4 and 8 weeks between export and delivery. In January 2017, export volumes were at their highest level and would have been actually delivered in March 2017. The same is true of the volumes reported for December 2017. Therefore, there is nothing anomalous about the increased volumes of exports taking place in December 2017 as reported by the EBMA and, if anything, it shows that the usual forces in this market are functioning normally. It is therefore highly misleading for the EBMA to present increased export data and volumes in December 2017 as delivered merchandise available for immediate sale. The delivery times mean that they will arrive just in time for the start of the main selling period in the EU market. Proper context One single month of alleged high export volumes (i.e. December 2017) therefore must be placed in the proper context. In November and December 2017, the volume of imports allegedly coming from China were 55,295 and 83,560 units respectively. Throughout the course of 2017, the average monthly volume of imports was 66,050 units. So, in November 2017 import volumes were 16% lower than the average for the year, while in December 2017 they were 26% higher than the average. Looking at this picture on a quarterly basis as opposed to a monthly one, import volumes in Q4/2017 are actually lower than any of the other quarter of that year. Source: EBMA Request for Registration No evidence The Collective further argues that the Complaint and all evidence collected so far during the investigations have not shown any prima facie injury to the EU industry that would justify the registration of imports. The EU industry has shown constant and significant growth of production and sales that simply excludes any possibility to conclude the existence of material injury. The EU electric bicycle industry has been constantly profitable and there is no sign it will decrease its profitability in the future. The EU electric bicycle industry has been competing successfully with imports from China that do not prevent increase of EU industry’s prices, further investments, additional production capacity and employment levels The EBMA has put no evidence in place to substantiate the necessity for the registration of imports. The Basic Regulation requires that any request for registration of imports made by an EU industry contains “sufficient evidence to justify such action”. The request falls woefully short of this requirement. The evidence provided is a summary of alleged export volumes from China, based on an unidentified source, accompanied by a series of spurious and unsupported allegations, which as explained above, are materially defective. Annick Roetynck on behalf of the Collective Well done Annick and those 20 small and medium sized companies helping to fight this huge injustice! The rest of you guys sitting back and letting a few of us make all the investment needed to pay lawyers to help protect our customers from huge price hikes next year really do need to get on board! Please. All the best, David Edited February 22, 20188 yr by Wisper Bikes
March 4, 20188 yr Author I did wonder whether Brexit would eliminate the ADT on e-bikes. In fact I wondered if it would delete ADT on all currently loaded products. But within the current Trade Bill going through the house is a new regulator,known as the TRA (Trade Remedies Authority),this would investigate duties to be imposed where goods are sold below cost price or unfairly traded or causing a surge in imports. As this Bill will initially replicate all current EU law,then any ADT’s will automatically be imported into the Trade Bill. The duty collected will be put into our coffers not the EU,so it is in Hammonds interest to continue the ADT,it will probably be given a new name. So those who hoped that ADT will be eliminated when we leave the EU will be disappointed,we may be better under WTO tariffs. I think this is part of regulatory alignment....it does answer why the Irish border may ultimately be no problem,if May intends to put import tariff on N.I. which is the same as in Ireland,how good HMRC will be at collecting the tariff is another matter. No point voting Leave to get rid of the e-bike ADT. KudosDave Edited March 4, 20188 yr by Kudoscycles
April 10, 20188 yr Tuesday 10 April 2018 Press Release Collective sends 2nd protest against registration to Commission The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles has sent a second, exhaustive position paper to the European Commission further objecting to the possible registration of imports. That registration has been requested by EBMA and, if granted by the European Commission, would allow for retroactive collection of anti-dumping duties. The Collective has reiterated and further detailed its arguments against the EBMA position. EBMA continues to build on unverifiable, Chinese export data to establish the so-called stockpiling, that requires registration. As a result, EBMA claims huge increase of Chinese exports in December 2017, January and February 2018. EBMA has consistently asked the Commission to treat these Chinese statistics as confidential information, since they allegedly have paid a fee to obtain the numbers. The Collective asks the Commission to disclose the identity of the data provider, which will also allow the Collective to obtain and verify the data for a fee. Improper assessment Nevertheless, the Chinese export statistics are not supported by Eurostat statistics. The Collective believes that this is due to the fact that the EBMA does not use the proper method for assessing the need for registration. Eurostat reports average monthly import volumes of around 68,670 units for the investigation period and an average of 59,200 in the three month following the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation. Even imports in January 2018, at 64,020 units, were lower than the average for the investigation period. So, the proper method for assessing the need for registration shows no surge in additional import volumes and/or stockpiling and therefore no need whatsoever for registration. Stockpiling practically impossible The Collective further argues that it is practically impossible for its members to stockpile in view of the way they work. They do not buy electric bikes off the shelve but have them tailor made, which involves very long lead-times, especiallyfor the parts to come in. These parts are in very high demand,since they are not only used for e-bike production in China but just as well for the European production of e-bikes. Even if an importer would have responded immediately to the Notice of Initiation (Oct. 2017), bikes ordered then will only be delivered well into 2018. Nevertheless, EBMAclaims that there exists an almost two year history of dumping which somehow indicates that EU importers should have been aware that dumping was taking place. EBMA relies on “rumours” about a potential anti-dumping complaint in the trade press back in Autumn 2016 to support the existence of such knowledge. Conveniently, however, EBMA omits that it expressly scotched such rumours at the end of November 2016 when it responded to them saying: “There is not any current EBMA request, nor – in EBMA’s knowledge – any new investigation at the European Union Commission at present. The rapidly growing imports from China to the EU are being monitored through Eurostat.” (Bike Europe, 29/11/2016) No (threat of) injury Conspicuously, the EBMA does not address any of the analysis provided by the Collective in its previous submission showing the absence of injury to the EU industry.As an example, in the 2017 financial report, the Accell Group notesfirst that it is one of the largest, if not the largest EU producers of e-bikes, and therefore potentially the price leader, and then confirms robust growth in its e-bike sales in the EU.Overall, for the Accell Group, turnover for e-bikes increased by 90% over a period almost commensurate with the injury investigation period. The growth in turnover between 2016 and 2017 was 30%. These results clearly donot indicate any injury measured in terms of revenues for e-bikes for this Group. The Group states that it also recorded a further increase in its order intake for 2018. Since future order intake is a crucial element of assessing actual injury or a threat thereof, the fact that publicly available information indicates that one of the largest EU e-bike producers has a healthy order intake points strongly to no such threat, contrary to the EBMA’s claims. Importing EBMA-members Finally, the Collective questions whether a significant number of EBMA’s members can actually be considered as part of the EU industry, because they themselves are significant importers of electric bicycles from China. It is relatively clear from the Commission’s non-confidential files that Prophete is a related importer for one of the sampled EU producers. Another EBMA-member, BH is part of the importers’ sample. As for Oxylane, it is part of Decathlon which, as reported by Bike Europe(16/01/2018), sells 60,000 to 70,000 per year which are currently being produced in China. Therefore, the Collective requests the Commission to carefully consider the impact of these activities. It also raises the question as to whether the sampled EU producers are actually part of a real EU manufacturing industry for e-bikesand to what extent EU enterprises have self-inflicted injury by engaging in these practices. The Collective is convinced that registration of imports willinflict further and disproportionate damage to EU importers.It would have an unjustified chilling effect with potential cancellation of deliveries, because EU importers cannot reasonably assess the risk involved in retroactive collection of duties at a completely unknown duty rate. The European Commission has until 20th April to decide on registration, which creates the possibility of retroactive collection. However, should registration be imposed, duties will only be collected on condition that the Commission decides for definitive dumping duties. That decision is still a long way off. * 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
April 10, 20188 yr Go Annick! Great job dealving into the truth behind such blatant protectionism! The collective of 20 European ebike importers and Annick from LEVA-EU are together funding this challenge, if we prevail we will have ensured that the price of Ebikes remain affordable and the superb innovation coming out of China will continue to benefit the industry. If any other importers would like to help please let me know, you would be welcomed. All the best, David Edited April 11, 20188 yr by Wisper Bikes
April 24, 20187 yr Latest from Bike Europe, EBMA's Chinese data obtained illegally claim: Information link .
May 1, 20187 yr I'll report back here. Sadly it looks like import registration and provisional anti-dumping duties are going to be enforced: Bike Europe link .
May 1, 20187 yr I had a long chat with Annick yesterday, this is by no means over, we half expected the registration to take place. There are a lot more hurdles yet to be jumped by the EBMA before they manage to get their protectionism measures in force. I can't go into detail here but suffice to say that we are not desperately worried at this point. I am sure that we, as a collective, will be issuing a statement shortly.
May 2, 20187 yr It’s certainly worth bearing in mind that the Commission’s stance is normally to register imports at this stage in the proceedings. It has happened ten times in the past, but only once ever have tariffs been back dated and that was on Oranges several years ago. There is still a long way to go. We need to keep fighting this injustice. I again would like to invite any importer not signed up to our group to join us. Don’t forget that IF ADT is adopted, the EBMA’s next move will be to press for anti circumvention, meaning we will not be able to import more than 40% of our parts from China.
May 3, 20187 yr Today we were advised that ADT could be set as high as 378%! If it goes ahead this will apply to ebikes or ebikes in component parts if shipped in the same container according to HMRC! If anything like this happens the days of the affordable ebikes could be numbered as the European mega firms take over the industry and rid them selves of pesky companies like Wisper! We are concerned of course, but these figures are based on the Swiss figures that have already been shown to be incorrect. We feel this means one of two things, 1. The command has come from a commissioner that regardless of the legals it must go ahead. 2. They are really clutching at straws and simply do not have a case. This could just be a spoiler. I know I sound like a broken record but we need as many importers of Chinese bikes or components to join in as possible, the more we are the stronger our lobbying abilities. All the best, David
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.