SAIC, Industry Group Rebut EV Tariffs at EU Hearings

The European Commission recently held hearings with SAIC Motor Corp. Ltd. and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) regarding its decision to impose provisional anti-subsidy duties on electric vehicles (EVs) imported from China. The hearings took place on Friday and Thursday, though the European Commission has not yet issued a response to the counterarguments presented by these entities [para. 1][para. 2].

During the hearing, SAIC raised concerns about the commission's investigative practices, which they deemed to be beyond the usual scope, such as requesting commercially sensitive data like battery chemical formulas. Moreover, SAIC claimed that the commission had made errors in determining subsidy allocations by inaccurately classifying companies wholly owned by SAIC’s foreign partners as affiliated firms. This classification allegedly led to a miscalculation in the subsidy rate [para. 3][para. 4]. SAIC termed the commission’s preliminary assessment “unfair, unreasonable and unlawful," and asserted their right to pursue further legal action [para. 5].

The European Commission initiated an investigation in October to determine whether Chinese EV makers have an unfair advantage due to excessive state subsidies, undercutting their European counterparts. SAIC was one of the three Chinese carmakers chosen for the probe. By July 4, the commission began imposing provisional countervailing duties on battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) from China, citing that the BEV value chain in China benefits from unfair subsidization, posing a threat to EU BEV manufacturers. SAIC faced the highest tariff hike at 37.6%, in addition to an existing 10% duty [para. 6][para. 7][para. 8].

Yu Jun, senior director of SAIC’s cooperation and legal affairs department, criticized the European Commission’s decision, describing it as “unacceptable” and contradictory to the facts. He emphasized that SAIC had cooperated fully with the investigation, submitting over 1,000 documents, some of which were apparently disregarded by the commission. Yu also pointed out that over 60% of EVs sold in Europe over the past decade were manufactured locally, challenging the claim that Chinese EV companies were harming the European industry [para. 9][para. 10].

The CCCME, during a news briefing in Brussels, argued that the European Commission’s findings were unlawful and incompatible with World Trade Organization rules. They criticized the commission for its lack of transparency, including not naming participating EU firms, not revealing data calculation methods, and secretly gathering a significant amount of undisclosed external information [para. 11][para. 12].

The provisional tariffs only garnered support from 10 of the 27 EU member states in a recent non-binding vote. France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Poland were in favor, while Germany, Sweden, and Austria abstained. Hungary, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Malta opposed the tariffs. The Czech Republic and Greece did not vote, which, under EU rules, is interpreted as support. This voting pattern is seen as a precursor to the commission’s final ruling, expected in November, which requires a qualified majority to pass [para. 13][para. 14][para. 15].

Commerce Minister Wang Wentao met with Oliver Blume of Volkswagen AG, where he expressed hopes that European automakers would advocate for a factual and rules-based solution to avoid further trade tensions between China and Europe. Blume voiced Volkswagen's opposition to the tariff hikes and trade protectionism, supporting market openness and fair competition [para. 16]. Germany's strong opposition to these duties is also driven by the fact that German carmakers sell significantly more EVs in China compared to Chinese brands in Germany [para. 17].

Contact information for the reporter Ding Yi and editor Michael Bellart was provided [para. 18].