Recently, Beijing Grandwin Law Firm, acting as legal counsel for China's Ministry of Commerce, achieved a complete victory in the EU anti-subsidy investigation concerning certain Alkyl Phosphate Esters (APE) imported from China. The European Commission ultimately terminated the investigation proceedings as the complainant voluntarily withdrew its complaint. No adverse findings were made, and no countervailing duties were imposed. This outcome successfully safeguards the market stability and commercial expectations for exports to the EU by China's relevant chemical industry and represents a landmark victory of significant exemplary importance in countering novel EU trade remedy investigations.

The case began in December 2023, with the investigation covering multiple aspects typical of traditional anti-subsidy allegations, such as preferential financing, government grants, tax incentives, and the provision of production inputs at less than adequate remuneration. Facing the European Commission's inclination towards 'template-based' allegations from past cases, the Grandwin Law Firm team, representing the Ministry of Commerce in the defense, constructed a systematic legal and factual rebuttal framework. Grounded fundamentally in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) and relevant EU regulations, the team launched precise and forceful counterarguments focusing on the three legal elements of "financial contribution – benefit – specificity."

The team's core defense strategy demonstrated significant professional innovation and breakthroughs:

First, Debunking "Macro-Labelling" Allegations: In response to the complainant's simplistic categorization of the investigated products (e.g., TCPP, TEP) as part of "encouraged industries" to argue for subsidy "specificity," we effectively demonstrated the lack of factual basis for this claim by highlighting the objective facts that these products are specialty chemicals with diverse applications and a clearly defined industrial position.

Second, Countering Outdated Premises with Current Facts: Particularly in addressing the "electricity subsidy" allegation, the team systematically compiled and submitted a comprehensive chain of evidence centered on the National Development and Reform Commission Document [2021] No. 1439, encompassing provincial implementation documents and actual corporate electricity purchase contracts. This successfully proved that China's industrial and commercial electricity consumption had already achieved full market-based trading during the investigation period, completely negating the European Commission's presumptions based on outdated materials.

Third, Constructing an Institutional Defense Framework: In areas such as financial and tax allegations, the team moved beyond disputing individual transactions and instead clarified matters from an institutional perspective. This included explaining the principle of independent operation established by the Commercial Banking Law and the statutory boundaries of systems like export tax rebates and the small-scale taxpayer regime. This approach fundamentally undermined the space for presuming "public body direction" and "specificity."

Through this intensive, high-quality legal defense and evidentiary submissions, we systematically narrowed the scope of dispute for the investigating authority and significantly increased the evidentiary burden and compliance pressure for the complainant to sustain the case. This ultimately led to the voluntary withdrawal of the complaint, concluding the case in the most favorable manner for our side.

The victory in this case holds profound economic and strategic value: Economically, it directly avoided the potential "dual-track overlay" of countervailing duties concurrent with anti-dumping duties, preserving crucial EU market share for the relevant Chinese enterprises and saving them from potential massive future tax liabilities and compliance costs. Legally and strategically, the case concluded with "termination of proceedings and no adverse findings," creating no negative precedent that could be cited in future cases, thus maximally protecting China's economic interests and policy space. More importantly, this case successfully demonstrated that professional, systematic legal defense can effectively counter and even reverse EU investigative narratives based on inherent biases. It provides a valuable "defense blueprint" and confidence boost for Chinese industries currently or potentially facing similar complex investigations, such as electric vehicles.

Beijing Grandwin Law Firm remains steadfastly committed to providing legal solutions that combine strategic vision and practical depth at the forefront of international trade disputes, safeguarding the core interests of national industries and the fair application of international trade rules. The complete success in this APE anti-subsidy case once again highlights the firm's exceptional professional capabilities and unwavering sense of mission in handling the most complex international trade remedy cases.