On 15 June 2026, the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission issued a final determination in the anti-dumping and countervailing duty review of polyvinyl chloride flat cables exported by Dongguan Minxing Cable Co. , Ltd. , finding a dumping margin of 2.5% and a subsidy margin of 1.2%, with the anti-dumping duty collected on a minimum price basis and the countervailing duty rate of 0% ad valorem.

The case originated from an application by Australian company Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd on 4 June 2018, with duties formally imposed from 14 May 2019. A review on 29 April 2024 decided to continue the anti-dumping and countervailing measures from 15 May 2024. The current review was initiated on 8 July 2025 with an investigation period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, covering customs tariff code 8544.49.

20.41. The Commission examined variable factors and the final determination did not alter the substance of the existing measures.

This case shows that Australia’s trade remedy investigations against China are frequent and ongoing, and New Zealand exporters of cables and related products should be alert to similar risks. First, Australia continued the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the sunset review, demonstrating its determination to protect local industries. If New Zealand companies export similar products to Australia, they should review their pricing and subsidy situations in advance to avoid being included in an investigation.

Secondly, Chinese companies’ experience is worth noting: Dongguan Minxing secured relatively low rates through the review, indicating that active cooperation in investigations may lead to reduced punitive tariffs. For New Zealand small and medium enterprise owners, this means they need to establish compliance systems in Australia-New Zealand trade and maintain complete cost data to respond to possible investigations. Moreover, this case involves parallel anti-dumping and countervailing investigations, reminding businesses to consider compliance in both market pricing and government subsidies.

In conclusion, cables are key components of infrastructure; Australia’s trade barriers may raise local construction costs, but they also create a window of opportunity for alternative suppliers such as New Zealand – provided they avoid repeating the anti-dumping and countervailing pitfalls faced by Chinese companies.

Keywords: PVC flat cables, Australia, anti-dumping, countervailing, final determination, Dongguan Minxing, duty rates, trade remedy

2026年6月15日，澳大利亚反倾销委员会对出口商东莞市民兴电缆有限公司的聚氯乙烯扁平电缆作出双反复审终裁，裁定倾销幅度2.5%、补贴幅度1.2%，反倾销税以最低限价计征，反补贴税从价税率为0%。该案始于2018年6月4日应澳大利亚企业Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd申请发起双反调查，2019年5月14日起正式征税。2024年4月29日复审决定自2024年5月15日起继续实施双反措施。

2025年7月8日启动本次复审，调查期2024年4月1日至2025年3月31日，涉及海关编码8544.49.20.41。澳大利亚反倾销委员会根据可变因素变更审查，终裁结果未改变现行措施实质。

此案表明澳大利亚对华贸易救济调查频繁且持续，新西兰出口电缆等相关产品的企业需警惕类似风险。首先，澳大利亚在日落复审中继续维持双反措施，显示其保护本土产业的决心。新西兰企业若对澳出口同类产品，应提前复核定价及补贴情况，避免被纳入调查。

其次，中国企业的应对经验值得借鉴：东莞民兴通过复审争取到较低税率，说明积极配合调查可能降低惩罚性关税。对于新西兰中小企业主，这意味着在澳新贸易中需建立合规体系，保留完整成本数据以应对可能的调查。此外，案件涉及反倾销与反补贴并行调查，提示企业需兼顾市场定价与政府补贴的合规性。

结语：电缆是基础设施关键组件，澳大利亚的贸易壁垒可能推高当地建设成本，却为新西兰等替代供应商创造窗口期——但前提是避免重蹈中国企业的双反覆辙。

关键词: 聚氯乙烯扁平电缆, 澳大利亚, 反倾销, 反补贴, 终裁, 东莞民兴, 税率, 贸易救济

AI illustration on MiDeer Observer

Source: None