歐盟對華銅版紙反補貼案實證分析
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-27 13:20
【摘要】：2010年4月17日，應歐洲高級紙張生產(chǎn)商協(xié)會（CEPIFINE）的申請，歐盟對原產(chǎn)于中國的銅版紙進行反補貼立案調(diào)查。而之前，歐委會已對中國輸歐銅版紙發(fā)起了反傾銷調(diào)查，2011年5月14日，歐盟就對華銅版紙反傾銷反補貼（簡稱“雙反”）案做出終裁，對中國出口歐盟的銅版紙企業(yè)征收8%-35.1%的反傾銷稅率和4%-12%的反補貼稅率。按照歐盟規(guī)定，兩項征稅期均為5年。本案是歐盟對華第一次采取反補貼措施，也是歐盟第一次對華采取“雙反”措施同時也是歐盟第一次對“非市場經(jīng)濟國家”在“雙反”措施中整合適用從低征稅的規(guī)則。由于歐盟是我國第一大出口貿(mào)易伙伴，中歐之間貿(mào)易往來頻繁，所以對此案進行深入探討和分析有著重要的現(xiàn)實意義。 筆者在瀏覽了大量的中英文網(wǎng)站和圖書資料的基礎上，采取理論分析與實證分析相結合的方法,從國際法和歐盟國內(nèi)法兩個層面，對歐盟對華采取反補貼措施是否合法，同時采取“雙反”措施是否合法合理，以及歐盟在“雙反”措施中采用從低征稅規(guī)則是否合理進行分析,在對目前國內(nèi)學者提出的應對國外反補貼策略進行分析的基礎上，結合本案提出建議對策，希望為我國今后應對類似的問題提供參考。 本文分為三個部分，沿著案情介紹、案件分析、建議與對策的思路進行。 第一部分為案件情況簡介，分為三個小節(jié)，包括對案情的概述，案件的特點和影響，并總結出案件爭議雙方主要觀點以及案件的焦點。 第二部分的案件分析是文章的核心部分，分為三個小節(jié)，分別圍繞對中國產(chǎn)品進行反補貼措施的合法性，對中國同時采取反補貼、反傾銷措施的合法性合理性以及歐盟對華反傾銷反補貼中采取從低征稅規(guī)則的合理性展開分析，以法律制度和法學理論對案件的合法性與合理性做出判斷。 第三部分是本案引發(fā)的對策及其建議，在對國內(nèi)學者的研究成果進行分析的基礎上，，結合本案，從中國政府和企業(yè)兩個角度提出應對類似案件的對策建議。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1
本文編號：2207418
[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.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 武長海;;歐盟對華新貿(mào)易壁壘值得關注[J];對外經(jīng)貿(mào)實務;2008年03期
2 歐福永;馮素華;;淺議歐盟反補貼調(diào)查程序[J];文史博覽;2006年08期
3 蔣小紅;歐共體反補貼立法與實踐[J];法學評論;2003年01期
4 曹和平;王宏;;美加對華適用反補貼法及中國的對策[J];法學評論;2008年04期
5 茍大凱;;從“歐盟對華銅版紙反傾銷反補貼措施”案看從低征稅規(guī)則的適用[J];法學;2011年08期
6 張蹇;;美國實施“雙反”措施的法律依據(jù)探析[J];南京大學法律評論;2009年02期
7 李煉;;加拿大對華反補貼案的啟示與對策選擇[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2006年13期
8 武長海;美國反補貼法的中國應對[J];WTO經(jīng)濟導刊;2005年09期
9 馮素華;;歐盟反補貼條例對我國的啟示[J];中共鄭州市委黨校學報;2010年05期
10 ;歐盟對中國銅版紙征收關稅 英印商叫苦[J];福建紙業(yè)信息;2010年24期
相關碩士學位論文 前1條
1 段圣娟;國外對華反補貼及我國應對策略[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學;2007年
本文編號：2207418
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2207418.html
