Illustration: Chen Xia/Global Times

On August 20,MK sports Korea the European Commission unveiled a draft decision to impose final countervailing duties on battery electric vehicles imported from China. The final disclosure did not adequately incorporate China's proposals and still adhered to the wrong approach. The European Commission also said that the tariff measures may take effect at the end of October, with an initial period of five years. This news immediately attracted attention and interpretation from all parties.

Compared with the preliminary ruling results announced on July 4, the European Commission's draft decision only slightly lowered the additional tariff rates imposed on BYD, Geely and SAIC Motor. Therefore, it failed to alleviate or eliminate the outside world's concerns and opposition to the EU's provocation of trade disputes. There are less than three months left before the EU makes its final ruling on November 4. Although the tariffs have not yet been implemented, their negative impacts are already emerging.

The European Commission's anti-subsidy investigation on Chinese EVs was unreasonable from the beginning. There was no initiative by companies to apply for it, and there was a lack of general support from the industry. There are also differences among EU member states regarding this investigation. Despite this, China has always been sincere and committed to properly handling trade disputes with the EU through dialogue and consultation. Since the end of June, China and the EU have conducted more than 10 rounds of technical consultations on this case based on facts and rules. 

China's attitude is very restrained and rational, but restraint does not mean there isn't a bottom line. As a spokesperson from China's Ministry of Commerce said in response to the European Commission on Tuesday, China will take all necessary measures to resolutely defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.

Many EU political and business personnel have clearly expressed opposition to this investigation by the European Commission. This move will not only fail to improve the competitiveness of European automobile manufacturers, but will also affect the investment of Chinese companies in Europe, damage the European business environment and image, and disturb global free trade order on which the EU relies.

 In the previous advisory vote of EU member states, 12 countries supported the provisional tariffs, four countries opposed, and 11 abstained, which is also a clear manifestation of the differences in opinions within the EU. It seems that not only did the European Commission's draft decision fail to seriously incorporate China's opinions, but different opinions within Europe were also ignored.

If the European Commission insists on imposing additional tariffs, it will directly increase the expenditure of ordinary EU residents. According to estimates, if new tariffs are added on top of the current 10 percent tariff rate on imported cars in Europe, EU citizens may have to pay up to 10,000 euros ($12,736) more when purchasing a basic electric vehicle priced at 30,000 euros. Concerns about this outlook have already dampened European consumers' willingness to buy. 

The Financial Times of the UK reported that Europe's electric vehicle industry has been struggling in recent months as consumer sentiment cools, noting that the "biggest losers from Brussels' crackdown may well be the brands it aims to protect." This prediction is becoming reality.

In light of the EU's stance, China's response is entirely justified and reasonable. According to reports, the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products previously stated that Chinese EV companies are closely monitoring the progress and outcome of the EU's anti-subsidy investigation and will assess the risks of investing in Europe accordingly. The EU has long been known for its openness and respect for rules, which has attracted the enthusiasm of Chinese investors. 

However, the recent lack of respect for facts and rules displayed by the EU in this investigation has surprised Chinese companies, and the business trust and positive atmosphere painstakingly built between China and the EU over the decades of pragmatic cooperation are being undermined by the EU. This is not good for the EU.

Regarding the so-called anti-subsidy investigation, China's position has been consistent, which is to resolve trade disputes with the EU through dialogue and consultations. Over the past dozen rounds of technical consultations, China has always demonstrated the utmost sincerity and has also sought to resolve differences through the WTO dispute resolution mechanism. 

However, China's determination to firmly defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies should not be underestimated. China's sincerity and rational, pragmatic attitude should receive an equal response from the EU. The European Commission should act in the interests of all of Europe, meet China halfway, and accelerate discussions to find an appropriate solution. This should be EU's top priority.