發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-18 20:16

  本文選題：反傾銷 + 反補(bǔ)貼　； 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：反傾銷與反補(bǔ)貼合并調(diào)查是指對(duì)某國(guó)出口的同一種商品同時(shí)進(jìn)行反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼措施。包括兩種主要形式,一種是針對(duì)同一種商品分別進(jìn)行反傾銷立案和與反補(bǔ)貼立案,繼而合并調(diào)查,最后同時(shí)做出征稅等措施,另一種是針對(duì)同一種商品先后進(jìn)行地對(duì)反傾銷立案調(diào)查和反補(bǔ)貼立案調(diào)查,但是調(diào)查期間和具體措施的實(shí)施期間重合。適用“雙反”措施時(shí),反補(bǔ)貼與反傾銷同時(shí)進(jìn)行,加大了協(xié)調(diào)工作量,提高了勝訴難度,對(duì)出口企業(yè)打擊力度加大。 由于美國(guó)在世界貿(mào)易中占據(jù)著舉足輕重的地位,美國(guó)的一舉一動(dòng)都將對(duì)其他國(guó)家產(chǎn)生不可估量的示范作用。同時(shí),受限于美國(guó)貿(mào)易保護(hù)的中國(guó)企業(yè)不得不將商品銷往其他國(guó)家,繼而使得其他國(guó)家紛紛效仿美國(guó)采取反傾銷與反補(bǔ)貼合并調(diào)查措施,這對(duì)于我國(guó)的對(duì)外貿(mào)易的損失顯而易見,因此,針對(duì)“雙反”的研究具有重要意義。 關(guān)于反傾銷與反補(bǔ)貼合并調(diào)查的合法性,學(xué)術(shù)界一直頗具爭(zhēng)議,中美雙方更是各執(zhí)一詞,作為判例法國(guó)家,喬治城鋼鐵案的判決為美國(guó)的國(guó)際貿(mào)易法律定下了一個(gè)慣例,即對(duì)非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)國(guó)家不得適用反補(bǔ)貼措施。自1986年后的20年間,美國(guó)一直奉行這一慣例,直到2006年“中美銅版紙案”,情況才有了新的變化。筆者認(rèn)為,“喬治城鋼鐵案”確立的“不對(duì)非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)國(guó)家使用反補(bǔ)貼措施”這一原則對(duì)當(dāng)代中國(guó)依然使用,美國(guó)商務(wù)部不顧國(guó)內(nèi)法律和判例的約束,對(duì)中國(guó)適用反傾銷與反補(bǔ)貼合并調(diào)查措施顯然是違法的。 而美國(guó)認(rèn)為中國(guó)《入世議定書》并不禁止反補(bǔ)貼和反傾銷措施合并調(diào)查。筆者認(rèn)為《入世議定書》第15條的目的在于規(guī)定與反補(bǔ)貼以及反傾銷的外部基準(zhǔn)相關(guān)的法律問題,而并非針對(duì)“雙反”措施。而且,《入世議定書》的起草者旨在通過這一立法來達(dá)到禁止反補(bǔ)貼措施和反傾銷措施的合并進(jìn)行的目的。 另外,《GATT1994》第6條第5款、《反傾銷協(xié)定》第3條第5款和《補(bǔ)貼與反補(bǔ)貼措施協(xié)議》第15條第5款等條款雖然沒有明確提及重復(fù)計(jì)算,但其適用的后果就是禁止重復(fù)計(jì)算。除此之外,《補(bǔ)貼和反補(bǔ)貼措施協(xié)議》與《反傾銷協(xié)定》都從歸因角度要求在進(jìn)行反補(bǔ)貼與反傾銷合并調(diào)查的過程中應(yīng)該區(qū)分補(bǔ)貼與傾銷帶來的損害和其他原因帶來的損害。 我國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)反傾銷與反補(bǔ)貼合并調(diào)查措施,必須完善國(guó)內(nèi)相關(guān)經(jīng)濟(jì)立法,加強(qiáng)我國(guó)國(guó)際貿(mào)易人才的培養(yǎng),從美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法律中尋求救濟(jì),充分WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)的抗辯機(jī)制,以維護(hù)我國(guó)的合法權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The combined investigation of anti-dumping and countervailing means that anti-dumping and countervailing measures are carried out on the same commodity exported by a country at the same time. There are two main forms. One is to file anti-dumping and countervailing cases against the same commodity separately, and then merge the investigation, and finally make a tax collection at the same time. The other is the anti-dumping investigation and countervailing investigation against the same commodity, but the period of investigation coincides with the implementation of specific measures. When "double countervailing" measures are applied, countervailing and antidumping are carried out simultaneously, which increases the workload of coordination, makes it more difficult to win a lawsuit, and increases the crackdown on export enterprises. As the United States plays an important role in world trade, every move of the United States will have an incalculable exemplary effect on other countries. At the same time, Chinese companies restricted by US trade protection have had to sell their goods to other countries, which has led other countries to follow the example of the United States in adopting combined anti-dumping and countervailing investigation measures. This is obvious to our country's foreign trade loss, therefore, it is of great significance to study "double-counter". On the legality of the merger of anti-dumping and countervailing investigations, the academic community has always been controversial, and China and the United States are even more adamant. As a case law country, the Georgetown Iron and Steel case has set a common practice for the international trade law of the United States. Namely, non-market economy countries may not apply anti-subsidy measures. For 20 years since 1986, the United States has followed this practice until 2006, when the situation changed. The author believes that the principle of "not using countervailing measures against non-market economy countries" established in Georgetown Iron and Steel case is still used in contemporary China, and the US Department of Commerce disregards the constraints of domestic laws and precedents. It is obviously illegal to apply anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation measures to China. The United States believes that China's accession to the WTO Protocol does not prohibit anti-subsidy and anti-dumping measures combined investigation. The author thinks that the purpose of Article 15 of the Protocol of entry into WTO is to stipulate the legal issues related to countervailing and the external benchmarks of anti-dumping, not to deal with "double countervailing" measures. Moreover, the drafters of the Protocol of accession to WTO aim to prohibit the combination of countervailing measures and anti-dumping measures through this legislation. In addition, Article 6.5 of GATT1994, paragraph 5 of Article 3 of the Agreement on Anti-dumping and paragraph 5 of Article 15 of the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures do not explicitly refer to double counting, but the effect of its application is the prohibition of double counting. In addition, both the Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures and the Agreement on Anti-dumping require that in the process of conducting a combined investigation of countervailing and anti-dumping, the injury caused by subsidy and dumping should be distinguished from that caused by other reasons. In response to the investigation measures of the combination of anti-dumping and countervailing, China must perfect the relevant domestic economic legislation, strengthen the cultivation of talents in international trade, seek relief from the domestic laws of the United States, and make full use of the defense mechanism of the WTO dispute settlement body. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D922.295;D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姜棟;;美國(guó)反傾銷法的利益分析及其啟示[J];法商研究;2007年04期

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

3 王偉;王先林;;反壟斷法視野中的反傾銷問題[J];法學(xué)家;2007年02期

4 茍大凱;;美國(guó)對(duì)華實(shí)施“雙反”之違法性分析[J];法學(xué);2010年03期

5 趙艷敏;;美國(guó)對(duì)華“雙反”案中的重復(fù)征稅問題分析[J];法學(xué);2010年11期

6 茍大凱;;從“歐盟對(duì)華銅版紙反傾銷反補(bǔ)貼措施”案看從低征稅規(guī)則的適用[J];法學(xué);2011年08期

7 劉勇;;論世貿(mào)組織《反傾銷協(xié)定》若干特點(diǎn)[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易問題;2008年02期

8 郭雙焦;米家龍;;WTO反傾銷制度與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)政策的關(guān)聯(lián)與沖突[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2008年01期

9 莫世健;;同時(shí)適用“兩反”的合法性和重復(fù)計(jì)算的違法性辨析(上)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年06期

10 王劍;;美國(guó)反補(bǔ)貼規(guī)則適用解析——美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品發(fā)起反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查的法律分析[J];河北法學(xué);2010年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 孫加燕;美國(guó)對(duì)華反補(bǔ)貼博弈分析[D];蘇州大學(xué);2011年

2 張江宏;反傾銷法的非公平性研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2003年

3 李琳;反補(bǔ)貼法中私有化問題之法律研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2006年

4 方成德;基于反傾銷的會(huì)計(jì)問題研究[D];南京理工大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2036734