本文關(guān)鍵詞： 歸零法 反傾銷(xiāo) 傾銷(xiāo)　出處：《安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：反傾銷(xiāo)作為多邊貿(mào)易體制允許的貿(mào)易救濟(jì)手段,目的在于抵制傾銷(xiāo)造成的損害,維護(hù)正常的國(guó)際貿(mào)易秩序。然而進(jìn)口國(guó)出于本國(guó)利益考慮,往往傾向于借反傾銷(xiāo)為由實(shí)行貿(mào)易保護(hù),但是采取反傾銷(xiāo)措施的前提是確定傾銷(xiāo)的存在,而由于傾銷(xiāo)幅度計(jì)算過(guò)程的技術(shù)性及國(guó)際反傾銷(xiāo)法律規(guī)制缺乏明文規(guī)定,反傾銷(xiāo)當(dāng)局在認(rèn)定傾銷(xiāo)的過(guò)程中具有很大的自由裁量權(quán),因此進(jìn)口國(guó)通常在計(jì)算傾銷(xiāo)幅度以認(rèn)定傾銷(xiāo)是否存在的過(guò)程中采用某些特殊計(jì)算方法或步驟,以期夸大傾銷(xiāo)幅度,達(dá)到實(shí)施反傾銷(xiāo)措施的目的,歸零法就是歐美在此過(guò)程中慣用的手段之一。 歸零法因?qū)⒄r(jià)值低于出口價(jià)格這部分產(chǎn)品的負(fù)傾銷(xiāo)差額歸為零,使其排除在產(chǎn)品整體傾銷(xiāo)幅度計(jì)算中而得名,具體運(yùn)用于加權(quán)平均對(duì)加權(quán)平均、交易對(duì)交易及加權(quán)平均對(duì)交易三種傾銷(xiāo)幅度計(jì)算方法中。歸零法的運(yùn)用會(huì)人為擴(kuò)大傾銷(xiāo)幅度,增加產(chǎn)品被認(rèn)定為傾銷(xiāo)的可能,并導(dǎo)致反傾銷(xiāo)稅征收比例提高,實(shí)際影響到出口國(guó)的利益,也因此引發(fā)了諸多爭(zhēng)端,爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)就是歸零法的合法性。爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)通過(guò)解決歸零法爭(zhēng)端案件,對(duì)其合法性做出裁定,但GATT時(shí)代,由于《反傾銷(xiāo)守則》的模糊規(guī)定,專(zhuān)家組肯定了歸零法的合法性；而發(fā)展到WTO時(shí)期,《反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)定》關(guān)于正常價(jià)值與出口價(jià)格間比較方法及“公平比較”的規(guī)定及舉證責(zé)任分配的變化,上訴機(jī)構(gòu)及專(zhuān)家組從裁定歸零法具體做法違法開(kāi)始,到裁定歸零法本身違法,全面否定了歸零法的合法性。但限于反傾銷(xiāo)法律并未明確禁止歸零法及通過(guò)談判修改《反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)定》及爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制以禁止歸零法涉及各國(guó)利益妥協(xié),短期內(nèi)不可能實(shí)現(xiàn),因此歸零法在WTO體制內(nèi)將長(zhǎng)期存在。 中國(guó)作為連續(xù)16年遭受反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查最多的國(guó)家,在此過(guò)程中也是歐共體及美國(guó)的歸零法的受害者。作為最大的出口國(guó),歸零法增加傾銷(xiāo)認(rèn)定可能,提高反傾銷(xiāo)稅征收比例,抑制了中國(guó)產(chǎn)品的出口,嚴(yán)重打擊了國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展。但由于中國(guó)出口結(jié)構(gòu)及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方式的不合理,以及應(yīng)對(duì)反傾銷(xiāo)歸零法經(jīng)驗(yàn)、人才缺乏,態(tài)度消極,增加了應(yīng)對(duì)的難度,筆者從上述方面出發(fā),對(duì)中國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)歸零法的立場(chǎng)及策略提出建議。
[Abstract]:Anti-dumping, as a trade remedy allowed by the multilateral trading system, aims to resist the damage caused by dumping and maintain the normal international trade order. Trade protection is often taken on the grounds of anti-dumping, but the premise of taking anti-dumping measures is to determine the existence of dumping. Due to the technical nature of the calculation of dumping margin and the lack of explicit provisions in the international anti-dumping legal regulation, the anti-dumping authorities have great discretion in the process of determining dumping. Therefore, importing countries usually use some special calculation methods or steps in the process of calculating dumping margin to determine whether dumping exists, in order to exaggerate dumping margin and achieve the purpose of implementing anti-dumping measures. The method of returning to zero is one of the usual methods used in Europe and America in this process. The method of returning to zero is named after the negative dumping difference of the part of products whose normal value is lower than the export price, which makes it excluded from the calculation of the overall dumping margin of the product, and is applied to the weighted average weighted average. In the three methods of calculating dumping margin of transaction and weighted average, the application of zero method will artificially expand dumping margin, increase the possibility that the product is considered as dumping, and lead to an increase in the proportion of anti-dumping duty collection. The actual impact on the interests of exporting countries has also led to many disputes, the focus of controversy is the legitimacy of the zeroing law. The dispute settlement body makes a ruling on the legality of the zero-law disputes through the settlement of the zero-law dispute cases. However, in the era of GATT, due to the vague provisions of the Anti-dumping Code, the Group of experts affirmed the legitimacy of the zeroing law; In the period of WTO, the provisions of "fair comparison" between normal value and export price and the change of burden of proof in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The appellate body and the panel of experts begin by ruling that the specific practice of zeroing law is illegal, and then rule that the zeroing law itself is illegal. It completely negates the legality of the zeroing law, but it is not explicitly prohibited by anti-dumping law and the negotiation of amending the Anti-dumping Agreement and the dispute settlement mechanism so as to prohibit the Law from returning to Zero, which involves the compromise of the interests of all countries. It is impossible to achieve in the short term, so return to zero method will exist in WTO system for a long time. China, as the country that suffered the most anti-dumping investigations for 16 consecutive years, is also the victim of the zeroing law of the EC and the United States in the process. As the largest exporter, the return to zero law increases the possibility of dumping determination. To increase the proportion of anti-dumping duty collection has restrained the export of Chinese products and seriously hit the development of domestic industry. However, due to the unreasonable export structure and competitive mode of China, and the experience in dealing with anti-dumping to zero law. The lack of talents and negative attitude increase the difficulty of coping. From the above aspects, the author puts forward some suggestions on the position and strategy of China's response to zero law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉亞軍;;反傾銷(xiāo)中的歸零問(wèn)題探析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2010年05期

2 姜棟;;論美國(guó)反傾銷(xiāo)法的立法和執(zhí)法過(guò)程——以利益沖突為視角[J];法學(xué)家;2007年01期

3 朱廣東;;反傾銷(xiāo)歸零屢禁不止的原因及對(duì)策[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題探索;2010年07期

4 程曉娟;;我國(guó)企業(yè)遭遇反傾銷(xiāo)的現(xiàn)狀、原因及對(duì)策分析[J];江西金融職工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

5 史建朝;我國(guó)企業(yè)遭遇反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查的原因及對(duì)策研究[J];焦作師范高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

6 姜濤;;WTO爭(zhēng)端解決報(bào)告的先例效力[J];人民司法;2008年21期

7 竇希銘;;美國(guó)對(duì)非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)國(guó)家的反傾銷(xiāo)單獨(dú)稅率問(wèn)題研究——以對(duì)華的制度性歧視及應(yīng)對(duì)策略為視角[J];山東社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年10期

8 劉勇;;多哈回合反傾銷(xiāo)規(guī)則改革的最新成果探析[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動(dòng)態(tài)與研究;2008年08期

9 朱廣東;;反傾銷(xiāo)歸零及其應(yīng)對(duì)策略研究[J];武大國(guó)際法評(píng)論;2009年01期

10 張函;;美國(guó)反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查中的“歸零法則”[J];武漢理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1477441