Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years when China's NEV subsidies programs started.
> Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.
This was never allowed and China upon China's 2001 Accession were required to phase them out 15 years ago, which China never did.
> You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.
Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing requirement since 2015.
> 1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.
False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. The lithium ion battery industry was single-handledly created by Sony in Japan back in the early 1990's; quickly followed by South Korea. China was very late to the game and so far behind, which is why China forced tech transfer from Japan and South Korea since 2011 (see example #1) and effectively banned them in 2015 (example #2) -- still refuses to enforce IPR of foreigners, which isn't anything new. Japan + Korea in fact started going after the Chinese infringers only this year and in Europe -- already scored significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Many more coming and CATL isn't far in their legal pipelines.
> 2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies.
Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer and other jazz in China. Tesla is an exception, not the norm. After EU filed WT/DS549, China promised to reform FIL and supposedly implemented in 2020/2021, but Tesla still remains the only foreign automaker without forced JV/tech transfer today.
> 3. That's the opposite of how dumping works.
Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works and why there are over 6-7 dozens of anti-dumping measures against China in EU. Dumping doesn't depend on a markup or profit/loss, but on the undistorted "normal-value" born by market without gov't interference -- eg, price fixing or illegal subsidies.
> This was a purely political decision.
Again there are over 100+ ACTIVE anti-subsidies/dumping measures in force against China. It's just one of many and has been on EU's radar for 15 years.