欧盟与美国反倾销法比较研究——兼论欧盟与美国反倾销法对中国的影响

【作者】 徐静华；

【导师】 刘玉平；

【作者基本信息】 东北财经大学 ， 经济法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 在各国间经济贸易往来日益密切的今天，中国深受外国倾销与反倾销之苦。在对中国发动反倾销调查的国家(地区)中，以欧盟和美国数量最多。本文对欧盟和美国的反倾销法进行对比研究，探求其异同，寻找中国企业应对欧美反倾销的对策，并借鉴其优点完善中国的反倾销法，以应对外国生产者对我国的倾销行为。 在反倾销实体法问题上，对欧盟部分结合案例阐述，并分别对欧盟和美国反倾销实体法中的问题进行对比。在倾销认定中，着重指出“非市场经济”制度及“替代国”制度的不公平性，其中，美国不承认中国为市场经济国家，欧盟对我国实行有条件的市场经济制度，因此应引起我国企业的高度重视。在损害确定问题上，应承认累积损害方法的合理性，但也应对之设必要的标准、限度。关于因果关系标准问题，则建议为了使反倾销法更趋公正性，应实现“主要原因”标准的回归。除了倾销、损害和因果关系这三个因素外，欧盟反倾销法的特色之一是将公共利益(也即“共同体利益”)作为确定是否征收反倾销税的条件之一，这也反映出欧美立法者价值取向的差别。反规避制度是反倾销法的延伸和扩展，因而有其存在的合理性与必要性。 在反倾销程序法上，分别对欧盟和美国的反倾销程序进行介绍，其中包括申诉与立案、审查、初裁、终裁、行政复审、司法审查等阶段。文章对欧盟和美国反倾销管理机构的设置进行了对比，阐明欧盟的垂直型机构和美国的平行型机构的利弊，并对美国的专门司法审查机构模式予以肯定。欧盟与美国反倾销管理机构的差别也是导致其程序法差别的原因之一。反倾销调查可以通过达成价格承诺(欧盟)或签订“中止协议”(美国)而中止，因此出口商可根据时机做出选择，以避免漫长的反倾销调查程序。由于反倾销法中采用的基本是行政程序，因而不可避免的产生行政自由裁量权问题，对此既应肯定其合理性也应注意将其控制在必要的限度内。 欧盟与美国对中国的反倾销行为次数多、数额大、税率高，对中国的经济与企业的发展造成了严重的危害，也促使中国企业及中国的理论界寻求应对策略，如发挥政府、行业协会的职能，组织企业积极应诉，对其“非市场经济”内容提要制度、“替代国”制度等进行抗辩，并利用其公共利益等条款或利用行政复审、司法审查等制度维护中国出口商的合法权益。从另一个方面考虑，也可通过对欧美的产品发动反倾销调查来遏制其对我国的反倾销行为。文章又以两个案例对中国企业的反倾销应诉与申诉工作提出了一些建议。欧盟与美国的反倾销法经过漫长的发展已比较成熟和完善，因此应借鉴其优点，明确对公共利益制度、反规避制度及司法审查制度进行完善，以增强中国反倾销法的科学性和实用性。更多还原

【Abstract】 China suffers from numbers of dumping and anti-dumping actions with the development of trade and economics recently. In the investigation against Chinese enterprises, the number of EU and USA is the most two. In this article, it compares the anti-dumping laws between EU and USA. Tries to find the similarities and differences, seek the countermeasure of the American-European anti-dumping for Chinese enterprises. And we must perfect the anti-dumping law of China from the merits of above two laws so we can reply the foreign producer’s behavior of dumping to our country.On the entity law of the anti-dumping, combines the case to explain to EU’s part. And compares the entity law of EU and USA separately. On determination of dumping, it points out " non-market economy" system and" surrogate country" system are unfair. USA does not acknowledge that China is as the country of market economy, European Union implements the conditional market economy system to our country .So great attention must be paid for the enterprises of our country. On determination of injury, it should be acknowledge that the cumulative assessment be rational, but essential standard and limits must be set up. On the causal relationship, it proposes that it should be use "principal cause" in order to make the antidumping law become more fair. Beside those three factors, one of the characteristics of antidumping law in EU is that public interest (" community interest") will be regarded as a condition on determining the imposition of anti-dumping duty. This reflects the difference of the legislators’ value orientation in America and Europe too. Anti-circumvention is extension and expansion of anti-dumping law, so its existing is rational and necessary.On the procedure law of the anti-dumping, it introduces to the anti-dumping procedures of EU and USA separately. It includes application, initiation, investigation, preliminary determination, final determination, administrative review and judicial review. In this article, it compares the establishment of EU and USA onanti-dumping management organization. Expounds the pros and cons of the perpendicular type of EU and the parallel type of USA. And gives the affirmation to the special administration of justice of USA. The differences in administration is the cause of the differences in procedure of two laws. The procedure can be suspended through attaining to price undertaking and suspension agreement. So the exporters can make the choice according to the opportunity, in order to prevent the very long anti-dumping from investigating the procedure. What adopted basically is a administration procedure in the antidumping law, therefore the unavoidable question is the discretion, it is rational and at the same time it should be controlled in the essential limit.In EU and USA, there are numbers of anti-dumping actions to China, the number is great, the tax rate is high, and they cause serious danger with the development of the enterprise and the economy of China, and this impels the Chinese government and enterprise to seek countermeasure too, such as giving play to the functions of the government, industry association, organizing the enterprises plea bargaining, especially to the "non-market economy" system and "surrogate country". And the Chinese exporters can utilize the public interest clause or the judicial review to safeguard their lawful rights. From another respect China can initial anti-dumping investigation to contain the anti-dumping behavior of EU and USA. Some suggestions are made for the work of Chinese enterprises’s application and attendance through two cases. The anti-dumping law of EU and USA are relatively perfect, so we can learn from its merits in order to strengthen the science of China’s antidumping law, such as the system of public interest, anti-circumvention, judicial review.更多还原