The country’s export manufacturers are facing an increased number of new market laws, forcing some to organize and deny the accusations.

Suppliers from China are realizing that they can no longer sit idly by as associations and lobbyists in their export markets, including emerging economies, file antidumping and countervailing lawsuits against them. A growing number of exporters are now coming together to fight such accusations.

Earlier this year, two Indian fiberglass manufacturers filed an anti-dumping complaint against their Chinese counterparts, including Jushi Group Co. Ltd. The company formed a task force to respond to the case. While awaiting the final decision, Junshi is paying provisional duties that are 60 percent lower than other suppliers affected by the lawsuit.

In April 2009, four ceramic tile exporters responded to India’s anti-dumping investigation. All four companies won and did not have to pay tariffs. Instead, those who did not respond to the complaint were charged fees of Rs 137 ($2.90) per square meter.

The China Fiberglass Industries Association encourages such action by exporters, especially those targeting new markets, as there is a higher chance of success if they join. The costs could also be shared. Companies typically spend between $30,000 and $100,000 each to counter lawsuits, which can last 13 to 15 months. Responding as a group requires a similar investment in money and time.

In fact, some associations and local governments are extending their help to affected providers, including seeking out lawyers and other experts who can help explain the options and ramifications. The ceramics association and the government of Foshan organized manufacturers in the city of Guangdong province to file a countersuit against Thailand’s anti-dumping investigation. More than 100 companies are involved in the ongoing case.

In addition, the China Ceramic Industry Association in Foshan is considering setting up an anti-dumping foundation, which can extend financial assistance to cover companies’ litigation costs. The association hopes this can encourage even smaller operations to be more active in responding to antidumping lawsuits. Although the number of exporters presenting waste is increasing, the majority are medium and large companies.

Still, not all vendors are convinced that taking action is the right move. Compared to the EU and the US, shipments to emerging economies are smaller in both volume and value. In 2009, China’s total exports to new markets, including India and ASEAN member countries, amounted to US$304.9 billion. But sales to the US alone were $220.8 billion.

As such, they would rather seek other export markets than allocate resources to familiarize themselves with lawsuits and file counterclaims.

Investigations, Lawsuits Piling Up

Antidumping duties have forced an estimated 10 to 15 percent of factories to close or target other markets. This translates into between 200 and 450 businesses in the ceramic industry, and 20 to 45 in the fiberglass sector.

In the first five months of 2010, various South American countries filed 19 cases, including antidumping and provisional minimum price measures, against 21 products from China. Argentina listed the most with 10 lawsuits, followed by Brazil with seven. Mexico and Colombia accounted for the rest.

South Asia, India in particular, is another market that has been actively initiating investigations into products made in China. Since the beginning of the year, India has launched anti-dumping investigations on Chinese exports of steel, fiberglass, penicillin G potassium, 6-APA and PVC coating.

Statistics from China’s Ministry of Commerce also showed that a total of 26 trade investigations from 13 countries were launched during the first four months of 2010. More than 60 percent came from emerging markets.

In 2009, seventy-nine antidumping cases were filed against various products manufactured and exported from China. In the same year, 12 countervailing duty cases and nine safeguards cases were investigated.