欧盟对华铜版纸反补贴案实证分析

发布时间：2018-08-27 13:20

【摘要】：2010年4月17日，应欧洲高级纸张生产商协会（CEPIFINE）的申请，欧盟对原产于中国的铜版纸进行反补贴立案调查。而之前，欧委会已对中国输欧铜版纸发起了反倾销调查，2011年5月14日，欧盟就对华铜版纸反倾销反补贴（简称“双反”）案做出终裁，对中国出口欧盟的铜版纸企业征收8%-35.1%的反倾销税率和4%-12%的反补贴税率。按照欧盟规定，两项征税期均为5年。本案是欧盟对华第一次采取反补贴措施，也是欧盟第一次对华采取“双反”措施同时也是欧盟第一次对“非市场经济国家”在“双反”措施中整合适用从低征税的规则。由于欧盟是我国第一大出口贸易伙伴，中欧之间贸易往来频繁，所以对此案进行深入探讨和分析有着重要的现实意义。笔者在浏览了大量的中英文网站和图书资料的基础上，采取理论分析与实证分析相结合的方法,从国际法和欧盟国内法两个层面，对欧盟对华采取反补贴措施是否合法，同时采取“双反”措施是否合法合理，以及欧盟在“双反”措施中采用从低征税规则是否合理进行分析,在对目前国内学者提出的应对国外反补贴策略进行分析的基础上，结合本案提出建议对策，希望为我国今后应对类似的问题提供参考。本文分为三个部分，沿着案情介绍、案件分析、建议与对策的思路进行。第一部分为案件情况简介，分为三个小节，包括对案情的概述，案件的特点和影响，并总结出案件争议双方主要观点以及案件的焦点。第二部分的案件分析是文章的核心部分，分为三个小节，分别围绕对中国产品进行反补贴措施的合法性，对中国同时采取反补贴、反倾销措施的合法性合理性以及欧盟对华反倾销反补贴中采取从低征税规则的合理性展开分析，以法律制度和法学理论对案件的合法性与合理性做出判断。第三部分是本案引发的对策及其建议，在对国内学者的研究成果进行分析的基础上，，结合本案，从中国政府和企业两个角度提出应对类似案件的对策建议。
[Abstract]:On April 17, 2010, at the application of the European Association of Advanced Paper Manufacturers (CEPIFINE), the European Union launched a countervailing investigation into coated paper originating in China. Before that, the European Commission had launched an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese coated paper exported to Europe. On May 14, 2011, the European Union made a final ruling on the anti-dumping countervailing case against China's coated paper (referred to as "double countervailing"). China exports to the European Union coated paper enterprises imposed 8-35. 1% anti-dumping duty rate and 4-12% countervailing duty rate. Under EU rules, both taxes are five years old. This case is the first time that the EU has taken countervailing measures against China, and the first time the EU has taken "double countervailing" measures against China, and also the first time that the EU has applied the rules of low taxation to "non-market economy countries" in the "double countervailing" measures. As the EU is China's largest export trading partner and the Sino-European trade exchanges are frequent, it is of great practical significance to conduct in-depth discussion and analysis of this case. On the basis of browsing a large number of Chinese and English websites and books and materials, the author adopts the method of combining theoretical analysis with empirical analysis, and from the two aspects of international law and EU domestic law, whether it is legal to take countervailing measures to China by the EU. At the same time, whether it is legal and reasonable to take "double countervailing" measures, and whether it is reasonable for the European Union to adopt the rule of low taxation in the "double reaction" measures, is based on the analysis of the foreign countervailing strategies put forward by domestic scholars at present. According to this case, the author puts forward some suggestions, hoping to provide reference for our country to deal with similar problems in the future. This article is divided into three parts, along with the case introduction, case analysis, suggestions and countermeasures. The first part is a brief introduction of the case, which is divided into three subsections, including an overview of the case, the characteristics and impact of the case, and summarizes the main views of both parties to the case and the focus of the case. The second part of the case analysis is the core part of the article, divided into three sections, respectively around the legitimacy of countervailing measures on Chinese products, countervailing to China at the same time, This paper analyzes the legitimacy of anti-dumping measures and the rationality of EU antidumping and countervailing measures against China from the perspective of low taxation rules, and judges the legality and reasonableness of cases by legal system and legal theory. The third part is the countermeasures and suggestions caused by the case, on the basis of the analysis of the domestic scholars' research results, combined with this case, from the perspective of the Chinese government and enterprises to put forward countermeasures and suggestions to deal with similar cases.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】