A trade guild in Europe warned Tuesday that the proposal raised by the EU Commission to impose anti-dumping duties on the Chinese imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware may hurt retailers and customers.

The Foreign Trade Association (FTA), Europe's premier association for trade policy and global supply chains, made a statement calling for abolishing the anti-dumping tariffs so European retailers and end-users can afford ceramic tableware and kitchenware.

"The products hit by these duties are many and varied. Basically, if it's in your kitchen, or on your table, and it's made from ceramic, china, earthenware, porcelain or stoneware, then it's going to incur extra duties and therefore increased prices for the consumers." said Jan Eggert, Director Gerenal of FTA.

The Brussels-based association responsible for more than 1,000 importers and retailers was speaking about the conclusions detailed in the General Disclosure Document released recently by the EU Commission that recommends duties of up to 36 percent be imposed on a wide range of ceramic kitchenware and tableware.

Meanwhile, the FTA also complained about lack of transparency in European Commission's trade dispute procedures. "For many years we have protested the opacity of the EU anti-dumping system where so much of what goes on is hidden behind a wall of confidentiality. "Jan Eggert said.

"This case is no different in that respect but it is particularly distressing to see valid arguments put on the side of importers and retailers have been seemingly brushed aside in order to reach a conclusion that satisfies EU producers." he added.

He also raised doubts about the legality of producers, saying the FTA had noticed a fact that the group of producers behind the investigation did not adequately represent the entire EU industry - and the explanation by the Commission was fatally flawed.

What's more, he noted that the Commission appeared to have relied upon data of one producer that was currently under investigation for being part of a cartel.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)