THE Chinese Government has demanded that all chambers of commerce, and enterprises involved in exporting and importing, must respond promptly to increasing dumping allegations against Chinese exports. Statistics from the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation last year saw 37 cases of Chinese exports being subject to anti-dumping investigations and having anti-dumping taxes imposed. According to Xinhua (the New China News Agency), 15 of these took place in the United States, nine in Europe and five in Mexico. An official said to avoid such problems, Chinese enterprises should change their practice of making products competitive in international markets, mainly by lowering prices and selling large quantities. He said with improved quality, prices would rise, and Chinese enterprises would not be misunderstood as being guilty of dumping. After a company had been sued for dumping, the relevant chamber of commerce should answer the lawsuit promptly to reduce the loss. Since the ministry issued regulations in response to anti-dumping allegations at the start of last year, all chambers of commerce for export and import had played a vital role in organising the response to such lawsuits, the official said. The products involved in the anti-dumping suits included clothing, machinery, electrical goods, chemicals, food and light industrial items. The official said because of the anti-dumping taxes, China suffered direct losses worth several hundred million US dollars last year, plus uncountable indirect losses. 'This is because when the fines were imposed, they were levied for five years or even longer in some countries,' he said. 'Such actions in some countries affect neighbouring countries importing similar Chinese products, which may also follow suit. As a result, China will lose a large number of markets in the long run.' The official blamed some countries for implementing protectionism by using anti-dumping as a pretext. He said those countries feared competitive Chinese products would expand the occupation of their domestic markets. Because the cost and price of China's products - especially light industrial, machinery, electrical goods and textiles - were so low, they were competitive in the international market. Under the socialist market economy, China's foreign trade companies and their manufacturing enterprises, as independent units, should bear the losses themselves. It was not wise for them to export their products with the price below cost, the official said. Many Chinese laws - such as the foreign trade law and the anti-unfair competition law - stipulated that dumping was an unfair competitive measure, and the Chinese Government had repeatedly issued orders forbidding such activity. However, he said, many countries had disregarded the facts and had taken unjust measures when filing anti-dumping suits against Chinese products. When investigating the Chinese products to see whether they were exported at under-cut prices, the countries concerned did not do their calculations according to real labour and raw material costs, but took developing world country as the standard, he said. The official said although the overall economic development of some developing world countries was similar to China's, considerable difference existed between the prices of concrete products. So, the principle of taking a developing world country as a standard was unjust. Some countries had levied anti-dumping fines without taking proper judicial procedures, or had made anti-dumping investigations of many types of product at one time, which was also unjust, he said.