Recently, Beijing Grandwin Law Firm, serving as a core legal counsel for China's Ministry of Commerce, achieved a strategic victory in the EU anti-subsidy investigation concerning Mobile Access Equipment (MAE) from China. Although the case concluded with the imposition of countervailing duties, through professional and robust defense, our team successfully compelled the European Commission to exclude several key subsidy programs from the final countervailable amount in its definitive ruling. These exclusions included allegations regarding the "provision of maritime and logistics services for less than adequate remuneration," "income support," and the "provision of electricity and raw materials for less than adequate remuneration." This resulted in the final overall subsidy margins being contained at a relatively low level (7.3%–14.2%). This outcome successfully curbed the trend of expansive interpretation by the EU investigating authority in recognizing new types of subsidies, preserving crucial EU market access for China's high-end manufacturing industry.

This case was the second-largest trade remedy investigation by value initiated by the EU in 2024, featuring numerous and highly expansive allegations. Notably, it was the first time elements such as "maritime and logistics services" reflecting supply chain advantages were brought within the scope of a subsidy investigation, lacking clear precedent. Confronted with this complex situation, the Grandwin Law Firm team worked closely with China's Ministry of Commerce to formulate a precise defense strategy. Through in-depth legal research and detailed factual evidence, we systematically challenged the European Commission's allegations.

The core breakthrough lies in the successful rebuttal of "non-traditional subsidy programs":

Starting from the legal requirements, the team forcefully argued that the alleged "low-priced maritime and logistics services" were obtained by Chinese enterprises based on market scale and commercial efficiency, not a financial contribution by the government. Regarding the broad "income support" allegations, factual clarification demonstrated a lack of specificity and no direct causal link to the export performance of the industry under investigation. After multiple rounds of intense exchanges, the European Commission ultimately adopted our core arguments in its final ruling, determining these programs did not constitute countervailable subsidies. Simultaneously, for traditional items like electricity and raw materials, the team successfully rebutted the related allegations by presenting a complete evidentiary chain demonstrating market-based price formation.

The victory in this case holds significant economic and strategic value. Economically, by excluding several key alleged programs, we substantially reduced the final countervailable subsidy margins, avoiding a potentially punitive outcome with double-digit duty rates. This preserved an EU market worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually for China's MAE industry and stabilized the industrial chain and employment. Legally and strategically, this case successfully established an important precedent limiting the arbitrary expansion of the EU's investigative authority. It clearly delineated the legal boundaries for treating generalized factors like supply chain advantages as subsidies. This provides a replicable "defense blueprint" for responding to more complex future trade remedy investigations (such as on electric vehicles), significantly boosting the confidence and capability of Chinese industries in facing international trade frictions.

Beijing Grandwin Law Firm consistently stands at the forefront of safeguarding national industrial interests and the fair application of international economic and trade rules. The outstanding results in this case once again demonstrate the exceptional professional expertise and strategic execution capabilities of our International Trade Team in handling high-difficulty, high-value cases involving novel legal challenges.