搜尋歷史
熱門搜尋
經銷商登入 / 註冊
Recently, the Internal Market Protection Department of the Eurasian Economic Commission released Announcement No. 2026/514/AD44, disclosing the final results of the anti-dumping investigation on new pneumatic rubber tires originating from Thailand and Vietnam, recommending the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the products concerned for a period of five years, with tax rates ranging from 11.31% to 22.37%.
This investigation involves new pneumatic rubber tires used on trucks, buses, trailers, etc., with rim diameters ranging from 17.5 to 24.5 inches, with tariff codes 4011201000 and 4011209000. It is worth noting that several Chinese-owned tire enterprises with factories in Thailand and Vietnam also appear on the proposed tax list.
Highest Tax Rate 22.37%, Many Chinese Enterprises Affected
Based on the disclosed proposed tax rates, the applicable rates for Thai and Vietnamese enterprises differ.
Regarding Thailand, the recommended tax rate for listed companies such as Prinx Chengshan Thailand, LLIT (Thailand) under Linglong, and Maxxis Thailand is 17.05%, while other Thai producers or exporters are 22.37%.
Regarding Vietnam, the recommended tax rate for Jinyu Vietnam is 11.31%; Sailun Vietnam and ACTR are 16.48%; Triangle Tyres is 17.25%; COFO Vietnam, Dacang Rubber, and Wuhua Vietnam are 14.99%, while other Vietnamese producers or exporters are 17.25%.
This means that when relevant enterprises export the concerned heavy-duty tires to the Eurasian Economic Union in the future, they may need to recalculate product costs, export quotes, and profit margins.
Taking a product worth 1 million USD as an example, if an anti-dumping tax of 17.05% applies, the corresponding tax amount is 170,500 USD; if a tax rate of 22.37% applies, the tax amount reaches 223,700 USD.
For heavy-duty tire enterprises with limited profit margins relying on price competition to win orders, such additional costs cannot be ignored.
It needs to be emphasized that the currently public information belongs to the final ruling disclosure and proposes tax collection suggestions, which cannot be directly equated to the relevant tax rates having officially taken effect. Specific effective dates and implementation methods still need to follow up on subsequent formal decisions.
Thailand and Vietnam Are No Longer Natural Trade Safe Havens
In the past few years, facing trade barriers from markets such as Europe and America, some Chinese tire enterprises accelerated capacity layout in Southeast Asia, hoping to reduce logistics costs, get closer to customers, and diversify trade risks of a single market through overseas production. Thailand and Vietnam have thus become important regions for the global layout of Chinese tire enterprises.
But this investigation shows that trade remedy measures are gradually extending from solely targeting products originating from China to similar products in other countries or regions.
Southeast Asian production bases are not natural trade safe havens, enterprises cannot judge market access risks solely based on factory location.
In the future, anti-dumping investigations may pay more attention to product origin, production process, cost structure, and affiliation between enterprises.
Overseas factories must have real, compliant, and verifiable production and business activities, cannot treat simple transshipment or nominal changes in place of origin as a way to evade trade barriers.
For Chinese tire enterprises, the decision logic for building factories overseas needs further upgrading, shifting from mainly considering labor, land, transportation, and raw material costs to simultaneously evaluating target market policies, rules of origin, and long-term trade risks.
What Should Chinese Tire Enterprises Do Next
Facing changes in trade barriers, Chinese tire enterprises need to do several things well.
First, establish a regular trade policy tracking mechanism. Focus on the Eurasian Economic Union's subsequent formal decisions, rules of origin determination, and progress on China's heavy-duty tire anti-dumping measures, timely verify applicable tax rates for different factories, products, and customers, do not arrange exports solely based on industry rumors.
Second, re-evaluate overseas investment and capacity layout. Production bases such as Thailand and Vietnam still have industrial support and logistics advantages, but enterprises need to consider tariff risks, market capacity, local operating costs, and supply chain stability together. The value of overseas factories will ultimately be determined by real production capacity and comprehensive operating income.
Third, increase product value-added and cost management capabilities. By improving product quality, developing high-performance heavy-duty tires, strengthening brand building, and optimizing procurement systems, reduce reliance on low-price competition. At the same time, fully consider possible tariff changes in quotes and sales contracts, reasonably agree on price adjustment and risk sharing mechanisms.
Fourth, strengthen industry synergy and compliance response. Relevant enterprises should prepare production records, cost data, export documents, and certificates of origin in a timely manner, express opinions through legal and industry channels within the scope allowed by the investigation procedures, protect their legitimate rights and interests.
Overall, this anti-dumping investigation on Thai and Vietnamese heavy-duty tires does not mean that Chinese tire overseas expansion loses its significance, but reminds enterprises that the rules of global competition are changing.
Building overseas factories is just the first step. True global capability is that regardless of where a company produces, it can accurately judge trade risks, control comprehensive costs, and continuously provide competitive products for the target market.
