Some Chinese cities pause car-buying subsidies as funds run out
China
have suspended trade-in subsidies for car buyers in June, according to Reuters' review of government announcements, which could slow new car sales in the world's second-biggest economy.
Notices from governments in Zhengzhou and Luoyang blamed the subsidy pause on the first round of funding allocated by Beijing for the programme running out, while Shenyang and Chongqing said the suspension was due to adjustments to improve capital efficiency.
The northwestern region of Xinjiang issued a similar suspension.
China's government has leaned on subsidies for big-ticket items, including cars, home appliances and some electronics to get people spending as consumer sentiment in the country remains sluggish amid a prolonged property slump and concerns over wage growth and unemployment.
The programmes have been embraced with some enthusiasm. As of May 31, there were more than 4 million applications submitted this year for car-specific trade-in subsidies, according to the country's Ministry of Commerce.
Chinese retail sales data for May released earlier this week surprised on the upside with subsidies cited as one reason for the higher-than-expected 6.4% growth.
While there has been no official announcement about when more funds from the central government will be released for programmes, China's National Development and Reform Commission and Ministry of Finance have said the subsidies would continue throughout 2025, leading analysts to expect new funds for the third quarter to be made available from July.
The subsidy programme has also met with controversy, however, particularly in the auto sector. China's auto industry, the world's largest, has attracted criticism from regulators over a deepening price war that has sapped the sector's profitability.
Official media in China's Henan province, where Zhengzhou is the capital, last week reported, citing unnamed sources, that China's central government had taken note of some loopholes in the subsidy schemes and would look to make adjustments.
One of the major issues identified by Chinese media and regulators is so-called "
zero-mileage used cars
", which refers to the practice of selling brand new cars as heavily discounted second-hand vehicles to get rid of inventory.
The report in Henan government-owned newspaper Dahe Daily added that sales of "zero-mileage used cars" were one of the key factors leading to subsidies being used up ahead of expectations, necessitating the suspensions.
Some businesses were disguising new or nearly new cars as used cars that they could trade in to obtain the subsidies, the newspaper said.
The People's Daily, a national newspaper that often signals the positions of China's top leaders on a variety of issues, also called for a crackdown on the zero-mileage used cars, weeks after Great Wall Motor's Chairman Wei Jianjun publicly condemned the practice.
China's industry ministry in early June summoned automakers to a meeting where it called for the sector to halt its price wars, Reuters reported last week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
What India is hoping for on US deal: Up to 20% tariff differential vis-a-vis China rate
AS THE India–US trade talks enter their final decisive phase in Washington DC, policy makers here hope that three implicit assumptions of New Delhi materialise, the most important being a steady differential between the US tariffs on China and India. Despite US President Donald Trump's vacillations on trade policy, the government is confident that the administration in Washington DC will maintain a differential of 10-20 per cent in tariffs between China and countries such as India. 'The deal needs to be clinched precisely for this gap to be maintained,' an official said. The official said the US is driving hard for market access in politically sensitive sectors such as agriculture and dairy, and there are strong red lines here. But a section of officials also reckon it is important to ensure a good differential between the US tariffs on India and China, for which a deal is vital. 'The question is whether the Indian negotiators would have to settle for a limited early- harvest type of deal, or would they have to turn away from the negotiations for now, let the July 9 deadline pass, and then rebuild efforts to bridge the gaps. A full-scale deal looks out of the question for now,' another official with experience of trade negotiations said. Second, there is now a realisation that cutting tariffs across segments, especially intermediate goods, might be a net positive for India. New Delhi did back out at the last minute from signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (a trade deal among Asia-Pacific countries including China) given the sensitivities of agri livelihoods. But there is greater receptiveness now within India's policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, including automobiles, and some agri products of interest to the Americans such as apples, almonds, walnuts, avocados and spirits. There is also more openness on the GM (genetically modified) foods issue too. Also, India has headroom to import more from the US, especially in three sectors – crude, defence equipment and nuclear, to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap. Third, there is a growing view that the baseline tariffs are here to stay. So, effectively, what India would be negotiating for is a rate between 10 per cent and 26 per cent. Prior to Trump's taking over in January, the effective US duty on India was just 4 per cent, and there were virtually no non-tariff barriers. What is more consequential today is the effective duty on Chinese products on a landed basis across US ports in commodity categories where Indian producers are reasonably competitive. The net tariff differential with India, and how that curve continues to move, is of particular interest here, given the belief that Washington DC would ensure a reasonable tariff differential between China and India. Officials said a 20 per cent differential is expected to tide over some of India's structural downsides — infrastructural bottlenecks, logistics woes, high interest cost, the cost of doing business, corruption, etc. On the face of it, Trump's announcement of 55 per cent tariffs on China on June 14 could theoretically mean a nearly 30 percentage point difference with respect to the 26 per cent on India. But there are a few caveats: for the Trump administration, whose tariff proposals generally have had a half life of less than 10 days, it is not clear how long the new tariffs announced on China after the latest round of talks between the two sides in London would last. Also, in the talks earlier in Geneva in May that led to a temporary truce, US tariffs on Chinese products were brought down to 30 per cent from 145 per cent and Beijing slashed levies on US imports to 10 per cent, while promising to lift barriers on critical mineral exports. While in a social media post, Trump claimed the US would impose tariffs on Chinese goods of 55 per cent, the catch here is that the figure included tariffs put in place during Trump's first term. So, while the 55 per cent tariff on imported Chinese goods might seem to retain a reasonable differential over the tariffs imposed by the US on India, this figure of 55 per cent crucially, includes a 25 per cent pre-existing tariff that was imposed by Trump in his first term, and that the Biden administration persisted with. The remaining components of this 55 per cent tariff are the 10 per cent baseline 'reciprocal' tariff and the 20 per cent tariff imposed initially by the Trump administration on China citing fentanyl trafficking. So, the real tariff calculation on China should ideally exclude the 25 per cent pre-existing tariff, which pretty much negates the impression of a big tariff difference with India; at least for now. The upside for India is that the trade deal under discussion with the US, which New Delhi is working to clinch before July 19, could see a further drop in tariffs from the current 26 per cent to closer to 10 per cent. The problem, though, is that China's leverage in its trade discussions with the US could mean a further downward revision in tariffs from the effective 30 per cent that was arrived upon at the Geneva talks. Though the details of the deal were still unclear, analysts predicted China seems to have gained the upper-hand after China's rare earth restrictions prompted US carmakers, including Ford Motor and Chrysler, to cut production. Ravi Dutta Mishra is a Principal Correspondent with The Indian Express, covering policy issues related to trade, commerce, and banking. He has over five years of experience and has previously worked with Mint, CNBC-TV18, and other news outlets. ... Read More Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
The US-China dispute over fentanyl drug & why Japan is caught in the crossfire
Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, is a major driver of the US opioid crisis, contributing to tens of thousands of overdose deaths annually. The US-China fentanyl conflict stems from allegations that Beijing insufficiently regulates exports of precursor chemicals for fentanyl, with US officials claiming Chinese firms knowingly sell these precursors to drug cartels. He emphasised that the issue will not 'impact Japan-US relations or trade talks'. New Delhi: Japan's Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya has dismissed a report linking Japan to trafficking of fentanyl to the US amid ongoing tensions between Beijing and Washington over the fentanyl crisis. A Japan-based news platform, Nikkei Asia, in a June report, raised concerns about Firsky KK, a company registered in the Japanese city of Nagoya, allegedly linked to a Chinese trafficking network. The report suggests that fentanyl precursors were likely shipped through this base to the US. However, at a press conference on 27 June, 2025, Takeshi Iwaya dismissed the Nikkei report's implications, stating, 'Japan will never tolerate the manufacture, sale, possession, use, or unauthorised import and export of illegal drugs, including synthetic drugs.' He added, 'At this stage, I do not think this will have any impact on Japan-US relations or talks.' Japan's Finance Minister Katsunobu Kato similarly denied any significant connection to fentanyl trafficking, stating, 'No fentanyl has been seized at Japan's borders in the 6 years through 2024.' Kato clarified that this includes both finished fentanyl and precursor chemicals. According to the Nikkei report, Firsky KK, registered by Chinese national Xia Fengzhi, was linked to Hubei Amarvel Biotech, a Wuhan-based chemical producer flagged by US authorities in 2023 and January 2025 for the production of fentanyl precursors. A New York federal court convicted two of Hubei's executives in January 2025 for conspiring to smuggle fentanyl precursors into the US. The indictment revealed that Hubei advertised and sold precursor chemicals, disguising shipments as legal products, such as dog food, nuts, or motor oil. Also read: Fentanyl precursors labelled as Vit C, shipped to US, then Mexico. Inside US indictment of 2 Surat firms US response On 26 June, US Ambassador to Japan George Glass posted on X, accusing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of deliberately fueling the fentanyl crisis and emphasising the need for international cooperation to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and its precursor chemicals from China. The post suggested collaboration with Japan to halt the trans-shipment of these precursors to protect both nations. In response, Chinese Ambassador to Japan Wu Jianghao defended his country's stance Friday, stating that China maintains the world's 'strictest rules' and the 'largest number of controlled substances'. Wu questioned the US approach, asking, 'If the US cares about the fentanyl problem, why doesn't it formally regulate all fentanyl-like substances?' The Trump administration imposed a 20 percent tariff specifically to address the fentanyl crisis, alongside other tariffs, including a 125 percent reciprocal tariff and tariffs ranging from 7.5 percent to 100 percent on Chinese imports. The total tariff rate on China reached 145 percent in some cases due to retaliatory measures. On 2 April, Trump announced a 24 percent 'reciprocal' tariff on Japanese goods—paused for 90 days to allow negotiations—alongside a baseline 10 percent tariff and a 25 percent tariff on automobiles and other goods that have remained in place. Expressing his frustration at the difficulty of penetrating Japan's auto market, Trump said in a Fox Business interview aired Sunday, 'We give Japan no cars. They won't take our cars, and yet we take millions and millions of their cars into the United States. It's not fair. And I explained that to Japan, and they understood it. And we have a big deficit with Japan, and they understand that, too.' Japanese trade envoy Ryosei Akazawa has been making frequent trips to Washington, pushing for the removal of all tariffs, including on cars. After Trump's Friday interview, Akazawa posted on X early Monday (Tokyo time) that both sides had agreed to meet again, indicating it was time for more trade negotiations. (Edited by Madhurita Goswami) Also read: Over 560 kg cocaine seized. What we know so far about one of Delhi police's biggest drug busts
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Exclusive-Iran made preparations to mine the Strait of Hormuz, US sources say
By Gram Slattery and Phil Stewart Exclusive-Iran made preparations to mine the Strait of Hormuz, US sources say WASHINGTON -The Iranian military loaded naval mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf last month, a move that intensified concerns in Washington that Tehran was gearing up to blockade the Strait of Hormuz following Israel's strikes on sites across Iran, according to two U.S. officials. The previously unreported preparations, which were detected by U.S. intelligence, occurred some time after Israel launched its initial missile attack against Iran on June 13, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters. The loading of the mines - which have not been deployed in the strait - suggests that Tehran may have been serious about closing one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, a move that would have escalated an already-spiraling conflict and severely hobbled global commerce. About one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz and a blockage would likely have spiked world energy prices. Global benchmark oil prices have instead fallen more than 10% since the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, driven in part by relief that the conflict did not trigger significant disruptions in the oil trade. On June 22, shortly after the U.S. bombed three of Iran's key nuclear sites in a bid to cripple Tehran's nuclear program, Iran's parliament reportedly backed a measure to block the strait. That decision was not binding, and it was up to Iran's Supreme National Security Council to make a final decision on the closure, Iran's Press TV said at the time. Iran has over the years threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on that threat. Reuters was not able to determine precisely when during the Israel-Iran air war Tehran loaded the mines, which - if deployed - would have effectively stopped ships from moving through the key thoroughfare. It is also unclear if the mines have since been unloaded. The sources did not disclose how the United States determined that the mines had been put on the Iranian vessels, but such intelligence is typically gathered through satellite imagery, clandestine human sources or a combination of both methods. Asked for comment about Iran's preparations, a White House official said: "Thanks to the President's brilliant execution of Operation Midnight Hammer, successful campaign against the Houthis, and maximum pressure campaign, the Strait of Hormuz remains open, freedom of navigation has been restored, and Iran has been significantly weakened." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Iranian mission at the United Nations also did not respond to requests for comment. KEY THOROUGHFARE The two officials said the U.S. government has not ruled out the possibility that loading the mines was a ruse. The Iranians could have prepared the mines to convince Washington that Tehran was serious about closing the strait, but without intending to do so, the officials said. Iran's military could have also simply been making necessary preparations in the event that Iran's leaders gave the order. The Strait of Hormuz lies between Oman and Iran and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea beyond. It is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lane just 2 miles wide in either direction. OPEC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq export most of their crude via the strait, mainly to Asia. Qatar, among the world's biggest liquefied natural gas exporters, sends almost all of its LNG through the strait. Iran also exports most of its crude through the passage, which in theory limits Tehran's appetite to shut the strait. But Tehran has nonetheless dedicated significant resources to making sure it can do so if it deems necessary. As of 2019, Iran maintained more than 5,000 naval mines, which could be rapidly deployed with the help of small, high-speed boats, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated at the time. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, is charged with protecting commerce in the region. The U.S. Navy has typically kept four mine countermeasure vessels, or MCM vessels, in Bahrain, though those ships are being replaced by another type of vessel called a littoral combat ship, or LCS, which also has anti-mine capabilities. All anti-mine ships had been temporarily removed from Bahrain in the days leading up to the U.S. strikes on Iran in anticipation of a potential retaliatory attack on Fifth Fleet headquarters. Ultimately, Iran's immediate retaliation was limited to a missile attack on a U.S. military base in nearby Qatar. U.S. officials, however, have not ruled out further retaliatory measures by Iran. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
