美国“337调查”问题研究

发布时间：2018-01-16 04:29

本文关键词：美国“337调查”问题研究　出处：《内蒙古大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：美国"337调查"是中国出口企业所遭遇的最为严重贸易的保护措施之一。实践中"337调查"主要用于识别专利侵权行为。美国海关依"337调查"的结果阻止侵权产品进入美国市场。本文意图通过对美国《1930年关税法》第337条(简称美国"337条款")及其相关案例进行分析,研究"337调查"的程序及其特点,揭示该程序中可能存在的贸易保护主义。同时,依据"337条款"(a)(1)(A)的规定,"337调查"的适用范围远不止专利权,它可以规制所有"损害国内产业"的"不公平竞争方法或不公平行为"。这就扩大了 "337调查"中"普遍排除令"等救济手段的打击范围。GATT专家组曾在个案中认定"337调查"中的普遍排除令违反了 GATT国民待遇原则,并且认为就该案而言,适用普遍排除令不满足GATT20(d)的规定,即不能作为国民待遇原则的例外。专家组同时建议美国对"普遍排除令"的使用加以限制。但在"天瑞集团诉美国国际贸易委员会案"(下文简称"天瑞案")后,"337调查"这个饱受争议、带有贸易保护色彩的制度拥有了域外管辖效力。这不但没有限制普遍排除令的使用,反而赋予了普遍排除令域外效力。本文第一部分是对"337调查"基本问题的概述。通过对"337条款"的法律条文进行分析,了解"337调查"的管辖范围、启动要件和程序。第二部分通过案例分析认定"337调查"中的普遍排除令违反了 GATT国民待遇原则,并且在该案中,普遍排除令不能作为GATT20(d)国民待遇原则的例外。第三部分是结合中国实际介绍三个依据"337条款"(a)(1)(A)以"不公平竞争方法或不公平行为"为由对中国企业发起的"337调查"。在"天瑞案"之后,"337条款"在管辖内容和管辖范围上都有所扩张。同时,普遍排除令的适用也被扩大到域外管辖和非专利侵权的案件。对此,笔者认为:"337条款"宽泛的管辖权和域外效力不仅是一种贸易保护主义的扩大与膨胀,甚至影响了我国司法主权的独立性。在随后的第四部分笔者提出了一些应诉建议。
[Abstract]:The "337 investigation" is one of the most serious trade protection measures for export enterprises encountered China. In the practice of "337 investigation" is mainly used for the identification of patent infringement. The United States Customs in accordance with the "337 investigation" results stop infringing products into the U.S. market. This article attempts to <1930 the United States Tariff Law > 337th (the United States referred to as "section 337") were analyzed and the related cases, procedures and characteristics of the "337 investigation", reveals the trade protectionism may exist in the program. At the same time, on the basis of the "337 terms" (a) (1) (A) provisions, "the scope of investigation of 337 is far more than the patent right and it can regulate all injury to the domestic industry" unfair methods of competition and unfair acts ". This has extended the" 337 investigation "in the" general exclusion order "and other means of relief against the scope.GATT in case of a group of experts had identified" general exclusion 337 investigation in violation of G order The national treatment principle of ATT, and that in that case, for the general exclusion order does not meet the provisions of GATT20 (d), which can not be used as the principle of national treatment group of experts also suggested that the United States exceptions. Restrictions on the "general exclusion order". But in the "Tian Rui group v. United States International Trade Commission (hereinafter" case referred to as "Tian Rui case"), "337 investigation" the controversial, protectionist system have extraterritorial jurisdiction effect. It not only does not restrict the use of general exclusion order, but gives the general exclusion order of extraterritorial effect. The first part is an overview of the basic problems of 337 investigation. Analysis through the law of "section 337", "understanding the jurisdiction of 337 investigation, starting elements and procedure. The second part through the analysis of a case that" general exclusion order violated the national treatment principle of GATT 337 investigation ", and in this case In the general exclusion order can be regarded as GATT20 (d) of the national treatment principle exception. The third part is the combination of the actual Chinese introduced three according to "section 337" (a) (1) (A) to the "unfair methods of competition and unfair acts on the grounds of the China Enterprises launched the" 337 investigation "in". After Tianrui case "," section 337 "are expanded in content and scope of jurisdiction. At the same time, for the general exclusion order was also extended to the extraterritorial jurisdiction and non patent infringement cases. In this regard, the author thinks:" article 337 "broad jurisdiction and extraterritorial effect not only is a kind of expansion the expansion of trade protectionism, and even affect the independence of China's judicial sovereignty. In the fourth part the author puts forward some suggestions for the respondent.

【学位授予单位】：内蒙古大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.2

【相似文献】