美对华贸易救济中的双重救济法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-24 15:09

【摘要】：入世以后,中国对外贸易有了突飞猛进的发展。一方面,由于中国具有的低劳动成本,使得中国产品在国际市场上占据着很强的优势。而另一方面,由于巨额的贸易顺差,中国产品也遭受了排挤。长期以来,西方国家认为中国的经济为传统的中央控制经济模式,一直未对中国发起反补贴调查。但是自2004年4月起,加拿大修改了其国内法律,允许对非市场经济(以下简称NME)国家实施反补贴措施,并于当年对中国出口至加拿大的产品征收反补贴税。该案对美国产生了示范效应,2006年美国对中国出口至美国的铜版纸发起“双反”调查,从而拉开了美国对中国实施“双反”措施的序幕。自此之后,美国对华连续对中国出口至美国的产品开展反倾销和反补贴合并调查,使得中国企业和产业利益蒙受巨额损失。一方面,在2009年和2010中国和部分美国企业针对新型充气OTR轮胎案中“双反”措施中的双重救济问题起诉到美国国际贸易法院,并且在美国国际贸易法院两次胜诉。美国国际贸易法院裁定DOC在该案中未能明确调整“双反税”的问题构成违法。法院认为DOC有义务解释GPX的双重计算问题,因为任何应诉企业都不可能精确的去证明。最后法院认为如果DOC没有改进其方法或者没有新的法律授权,使得其对中国的“双反”更合理,那么其不能对NME国家适用反补贴措施。2011年12月19日,CAFC在该案的裁决中,再次做出了与乔治城钢铁案一样的判决,即美国反补贴法律不能应用于NME国家。另一方面,中国也将双重救济的问题诉诸WTO,即DS379案。在该案中,尽管专家组认为可能有双重救济的问题产生,但是认为中国未能证明美国对涉案的四种产品同时征收反倾销税和以非市场方法计算的反倾销税做法与《SCM协定》第10、19.3和32.1条、或者《GATT 1994》6.3条规定的“反补贴税额不超过直接或间接得到的奖金的估算数额”,以及未能证明“美国未能给予中国政府和利害关系方机会以提供评估双重救济必要的信息”不符合其在《SCM协定》12.1条和12.8条下的义务。最后专家组还认为中国未能证明美国同时征收“双反税”的做法不符合《GATT 1994》第1.1条下的义务。但是上诉机构推翻了专家组关于《SCM协定》第19.3条的解释,认定美国的双重救济违反了《SCM协定》第19.3条,并认定在四起案件中,DOC没有评估是否会存在双重救济的做法违反了《SCM协定》第10条和第32.1条。美国国会迅速通过修订成文法,授权DOC对NME国家采用反补贴法。2012年3月13日,《对非市场经济国家适用1930年关税法的反补贴税条款及用于其他目的法案》(以下简称H.R.4105法案)在参众两院获得通过,并经奥巴马签署正式生效。该法案一方面履行了DSB关于美国双重救济做法与WTO规则相违背的裁决,另一方面对其国内CAFC判决的回应。该法案允许DOC可以对来自NME国家的产品使用反补贴法律,并将生效日期追溯至2006年11月20日以后对华适用的所有反补贴措施,但对2006年到2012年之间的“双反案件”中的双重救济问题视而不见,知而不改。中国不服美国的履行并把美国的H.R.4105法案再一次诉诸WTO(DS449案),一来表达对美国没有对2006年11月20日到2012年3月12日的25起“双反措施”中的双重救济问题进行调整的不满,二来是向WTO请求裁决美国新修订的法律违反WTO规则。2014年3月27日,专家组经分析后,并没有支持中国认为的《H.R.4105》法案违反《GATT 1994》第10条第一、二、三款。中国对专家组的部分决定不服,于2014年4月8日提起上诉。2014年7月7日,上诉机构在其报告中推翻了专家组关于《GATT 1994》第10.2条的解释,包括专家组认为的中国未能证明“法案修正案按既定统一办法提高了关税和其他进口费用”、“中国未能证明法案对进口施加了新的或更重的负担,限制或禁止”。但遗憾的是由于专家组没能提供足够的事实证据,上诉机构未能完成关于H.R.4105法案的合法性分析,也即对美国H.R.4105法案是否违反世贸规则未下定论。中国在DS449的诉讼目的未能实现,这就意味着在DS449案的执行中,美国没有义务去修改其立法。中国要想挑战该法案,只能通过以后新的案件进行尝试。中国在应对双重救济的问题上任重而道远,一来是该问题没有在WTO争端解决案中得到彻底解决,二来因为该问题并不只是存在于NME国家。不管在2016年12月10日以前的中国被美国视为NME国家的阶段或者是在2016年以后中国结束了过渡期(《中国入世议定书》承诺的15年,到2016年为止),双重救济的问题都将会一直存在于中美贸易中。中国应不断总结积累历次在美国法院诉讼和WTO争端解决案件中的经验,结合实践,认真研究WTO相关规则,积极应对美国对中国的不公平贸易行为,维护中国企业的利益。本文共分四章,分别从理论上、美国国内法律和实践、WTO裁决及美国后续DSB裁决的履行对双重救济问题进行分析,最后是对双重救济发展趋势的展望及双重救济的应对策略。本文第一章是对双重救济问题的概述,首先是对双重救济的概念进行定义;其次,是分析双重救济产生的原因;再次,区分了出口补贴和国内补贴两种情形并分别举例来认定双重救济;最后就是对双重救济进行违法性分析并介绍双重救济的危害。本文第二章分别从政策立法、司法和法律实践介绍美国对华的双重救济问题。美国国内一开始并不支持对非市场经济国家实施反补贴措施,包括立法,行政和司法上都支持该做法。但是后来由于美国贸易保护主义抬头,加之中美居高不下的贸易逆差,促使DOC改变了态度,并付诸于对华“双反”的实践中。但是该举措并未获得美国国际贸易法院和CAFC的支持。本文第三章主要阐述“中美双反案”(WT/DS379)中专家组和上诉机构对美国对华并征反倾销税和反补贴税是否存在双重救济问题的分析,并进一步论证“双反措施”是否违反了《SCM协定》19.3条以“适当金额”征收反补贴税的规定。在DS379裁决之后,追踪美国在DS379案之后的执行,并结合美国法院对法案的判决和DS449案的裁决,来分析美国是否完全履行了DSB裁决。第四章分析了双重救济的发展趋势,分析目前我国应对双重救济存在的不足,并提出完善策略。因为根据中国入世前所签订的入世议定书以及今天发展的中国,很多成员国还认为中国的经济仍处在很强的政府管控中。WTO规则或美国国内法或其他任何地方都没有规定中国将会在2016年自动取得市场经济(以下简称ME)地位。鉴于美国不会完全去履行WTO反倾销规则,在2016年中国NME地位到期时,美国将会怎样做尚无明确定论。双重救济不只是目前的问题,可能还将长期存在。因此如何去应对双重征税的问题便显得很重要。本文的创新之处有二:第一,追溯了整个双重救济问题的裁判发展,从中国出口商对DOC的双重救济问题起诉到CIT,再上诉到CAFC,再到中国针对双重救济问题两次诉诸WTO争端解决机构,即DS 379和DS 449。通过对法院和两个WTO案件对双重救济及由此问题产生的H.R.4105法案的分析,呈现了该问题最新的发展;第二,在2016年12月10日即将到来的时候,中国的NME问题也成为各方关注的问题。因为目前大部分学者都把注意力集中在NME国家的双重救济问题,而忽略了ME国家可能出现的双重救济问题。在此背景下,在前人研究的基础上,分析了2016年之后美国对中国NME问题可能采取的模式,并且对可能出现的双重救济问题进行分析,并提出策略。
[Abstract]:After China's entry into the WTO, China's foreign trade has developed rapidly. On the one hand, Chinese products have a strong advantage in the international market because of the low labor costs of China. On the other hand, the Chinese products have been excluded because of the huge trade surplus and the western countries think the Chinese economy is the traditional economy for a long time. Since April 2004, Canada has amended its domestic laws to allow countervailing measures to non market economies (hereinafter referred to as NME) countries, and a countervailing duty on products exported to Canada in the year since April 2004. In 2006, the United States launched a "double counter" survey of Chinese exports to the United States, which opened the prelude to the implementation of "double counter" measures in the United States. Since then, the United States has carried out anti-dumping and countervailing investigations on China's exports to the United States continuously, making Chinese enterprises and industrial interests suffer huge losses. In 2009 and 2010, Chinese and some American companies prosecuted the United States Court of international trade for double relief in the new inflatable OTR tire case and the two victory in the U. S. International Trade Court. The U. S. International Trade Court ruled that DOC failed to make clear the question of "double anti tax" in the case. The court believes that DOC has an obligation to explain the dual computing problem of GPX, because any enterprise that respondent can not be proved accurate. Finally, the court thinks that if DOC does not improve its method or no new legal authorization, it makes it more reasonable for China's "double counter", then it can not apply countervailing measures to NME countries for.2011 12,.2011 On the 19 day of the case, CAFC again made the same decision as the Georgetown iron and steel case in which the United States Countervailing Law could not be applied to the NME country. On the other hand, China also took the issue of double relief to WTO, that is, the case of DS379. The United States has proved that the four kinds of products involved in the United States are simultaneously expropriation of anti-dumping duties and anti dumping duties calculated by non market methods and the Article 10,19.3 and 32.1, or "the amount of the countervailing tax amount not exceeded directly or indirectly," as stipulated in article 6.3, and failed to prove that "the United States has not been given to China's administration." The opportunity for the government and the stakeholders to provide the information necessary for assessing double remedies "is not in conformity with its obligations under article >12.1 and article 12.8 of the . But the Appellate Body overthrew the panel of experts on Article 19.3 explained that double relief in the United States violated the Article 19.3 and found that in the four cases, DOC did not evaluate the existence of double remedies in violation of the tenth and article 32.1. The United States Congress quickly passed the revised grammar and authorized the DOC to adopt the Countervailing Law to the NME countries in March 1. On the 3 day, the provisions of the anti subsidy tax on the non market economy countries and the bill for other purposes (hereinafter referred to as the H.R.4105 bill) were adopted in the Senate and the Senate, which was signed by Obama. On the one hand, the bill fulfilled DSB's adjudication against the United States double relief practices and the WTO rules. The other side faced the bill. In response to its domestic CAFC decision, the bill allows DOC to use countervailing laws for products from NME countries and to date the effective date back to all countervailing measures applicable to China after November 20, 2006, but ignore the double remedies in the "double counter cases" between 2006 and 2012. The implementation of the United States and the H.R.4105 act of the United States once again resorted to the WTO (DS449) to express their dissatisfaction with the adjustment of the double remedies in the 25 "double counter measures" of the United States from November 20, 2006 to March 12, 2012. The second is to request the WTO to adjudication of the new revised law of the United States in March 27th of the WTO rule,.2014. The expert group, after analysis, did not support China's opinion that the act violated tenth, first, second, three. China was not convinced by some of the panel's decision. In July 7th, in April 8, 2014, the Appellate Body overthrew the expert group's interpretation of article 10.2 of , including the expert group. China failed to prove that the "amendment to the bill increased tariffs and other import costs in accordance with the established unified approach". "China failed to prove that the bill imposed a new or more heavy burden on imports, restrictions or prohibition." unfortunately, the panel failed to provide sufficient evidence of the fact that the appellate agency failed to complete the H.R.4105 law. The analysis of the legality of the case is not the final conclusion of the violation of the WTO rules by the American H.R.4105 act. China's litigation purpose in the DS449 is not realized, which means that in the implementation of the DS449 case, the United States has no obligation to amend its legislation. China wants to challenge the bill and can only try new cases in the future. China is responding to dual response. The problem of relief is a long way to go, as one is that the problem is not completely resolved in the WTO dispute settlement. Second, it is not only in the NME country, no matter what the United States sees as the NME state in the United States before December 10, 2016, or the transition period (< China Accession Protocol) after 2016. The 15 years of commitment, by 2016, will always exist in the Sino US trade. China should constantly sum up the experience accumulated in the United States court proceedings and WTO dispute settlement cases, study the relevant rules of the WTO and actively deal with the unfair trade behavior of the United States to China and safeguard Chinese enterprises. The article is divided into four chapters. This article is divided into four chapters: the analysis of double relief from the theory, the domestic law and practice, the adjudication of the United States and the implementation of the subsequent DSB award in the United States. Finally, it is the prospect of the dual relief development and the strategy of double relief. The first chapter is a summary of the double relief, first of all, double rescue. The concept of "Francis" is defined. Secondly, it is the analysis of the causes of double relief. Again, it distinguishes two cases of export subsidies and domestic subsidies and identifies double relief respectively. Finally, it analyzes the illegality of double relief and introduces the harm of double relief. The second chapter of this article is from policy legislation, judicature and legal practice respectively. The U.S. dual relief to China was introduced. At first, the United States did not support the implementation of countervailing measures against non market economies, including legislative, administrative and judicial support. But later, the rise of American trade protectionism and the high trade deficit between China and the United States led DOC to change its attitude and put it into practice. In the third chapter of this article, the third chapter mainly expounds the analysis of whether there is a dual rescue problem on the anti dumping and countervailing duties of the United States to China in China and the appellate body, and further demonstrates the "double counter measures". Whether it violates the provisions of the "appropriate amount" of the countervailing duty in the "appropriate amount" of the 【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.295

【相似文献】